Monday, December 6, 2010
Petition Drive
Concern Citizens of Clifton are starting a petition drive for an ethics and recall ordinance, then move to challenge the plowing contract - this is a disgrace
Plow and Sanding
Well the storm is over and the road is still waiting for plow and sand. Someone should mention to the plow, when it comes, there is a bus turn around and turn out that hasn't been touched. Nor did we plow Mill Lane to the end of the road at the MacDonald residence, instead we turned at the mailboxes. The video shows glare ice with packed wet snow and no sand! But all the trucks are plowing Springy Pond and Tradewinds, I hope we have a sand and salt log as required to insure our tax payer sand stays on town roads - this has been a hard fast rule for years, and it continues. Wonder what the DOT thinks of plowing state roads with a pickup truck. Try to drive a car to work or home...first time in 10 years the mail won't even attempt to deliver and got stuck....at $13,000 more a year....keep up the great job with our tax dollars.
Hey if you drive the gateway car in a bank robbery do you get charged?
Hey if you drive the gateway car in a bank robbery do you get charged?
TIF - Credit Enhancement for Wind Project
I am glad to see that we are moving forward with Mr. Fullers wind project, this will provide nice energy for the grid, construction work, maintenance jobs, wildlife habibat for deer and is just right to help the town.
The question that should be put before the voters is a simple one - Should a TIF be created for Mr. Fuller and the Town of Clifton. My answer would be YES as fast as we can approve a TIF, get it done.
If a TIF is not created the COUNTY will tax us more, the SCHOOL will get much more with no increase in students, our share of the school budget would be the highest. Heck maybe we could build our own school?
With a TIF, the town's valuation is removed so that it shelters a town from its school and county assessments, while protecting the town's percentage of state revenue sharing.
Pretty much, it's a tax shelter. Mr. Fuller is making an investment of capital into your community, you're giving them somewhat of a tax break.
If it was fully taxable, residents would pay more in school assessment, and more in county taxes, and it would reduce our revenue sharing, which means whatever we got for taxes from the wind project would be off set by the loss in sending more dollars to the county and school - worst with our high evaluation rates.
Oakfield Maine - created a wonderful TIF with First Wind and that should be used as a model with Mr. Fuller. In no way should the town be greedy, but clearly this would be a win win for both the town and Mr. Fuller.
There are several items to consider in the TIF; a direct payment to the town for use on roads and maintenance (we need capital improvements bad)(this could be $200-500,000 a year); college tuition payments for all high school students; direct payments to each resident household (would suggest starting with a formula like Oakfield, it could be an amount equal to a persons tax bill). The town should immediately take Mr. Fuller up on his offer to allow the town to place a turbine for its own use - then the town should apply for a USDA grant to install the turbine and the income from use should go directly back to the residents in the form of a dividend.
I would like to talk about college tuition for a moment, several towns in Maine provide funding to each student attending an approved college or university. Education is the key to our survival and think about the return. A child will never forget the help they would get in attending college and return to town that helped raise him or her knowing the value of a small town. If memory serves me correctly the little town of The Forks provides $2,000 to each student attending college. Think what this would do for our work force! Say we provided $2,000 a year to any student, regardless of age attending college, say to a limit of six years. The quality of life of our residents would improve, not to mention their income - it is a fact that income is directly related to college education - we always want more for our children. I don't care it is for auto body work, small engine repair, meat cutting, nursing or to be a doctor any enhanced education is great.
The question that should be put before the voters is a simple one - Should a TIF be created for Mr. Fuller and the Town of Clifton. My answer would be YES as fast as we can approve a TIF, get it done.
If a TIF is not created the COUNTY will tax us more, the SCHOOL will get much more with no increase in students, our share of the school budget would be the highest. Heck maybe we could build our own school?
With a TIF, the town's valuation is removed so that it shelters a town from its school and county assessments, while protecting the town's percentage of state revenue sharing.
Pretty much, it's a tax shelter. Mr. Fuller is making an investment of capital into your community, you're giving them somewhat of a tax break.
If it was fully taxable, residents would pay more in school assessment, and more in county taxes, and it would reduce our revenue sharing, which means whatever we got for taxes from the wind project would be off set by the loss in sending more dollars to the county and school - worst with our high evaluation rates.
Oakfield Maine - created a wonderful TIF with First Wind and that should be used as a model with Mr. Fuller. In no way should the town be greedy, but clearly this would be a win win for both the town and Mr. Fuller.
There are several items to consider in the TIF; a direct payment to the town for use on roads and maintenance (we need capital improvements bad)(this could be $200-500,000 a year); college tuition payments for all high school students; direct payments to each resident household (would suggest starting with a formula like Oakfield, it could be an amount equal to a persons tax bill). The town should immediately take Mr. Fuller up on his offer to allow the town to place a turbine for its own use - then the town should apply for a USDA grant to install the turbine and the income from use should go directly back to the residents in the form of a dividend.
I would like to talk about college tuition for a moment, several towns in Maine provide funding to each student attending an approved college or university. Education is the key to our survival and think about the return. A child will never forget the help they would get in attending college and return to town that helped raise him or her knowing the value of a small town. If memory serves me correctly the little town of The Forks provides $2,000 to each student attending college. Think what this would do for our work force! Say we provided $2,000 a year to any student, regardless of age attending college, say to a limit of six years. The quality of life of our residents would improve, not to mention their income - it is a fact that income is directly related to college education - we always want more for our children. I don't care it is for auto body work, small engine repair, meat cutting, nursing or to be a doctor any enhanced education is great.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Concerned Citizens of Clifton
When it comes to Clifton citizens unhappy with government, the tea party isn’t the only thing brewing. Our meetings will be open format following the general principles established by the Tea Party Patriots.
A slew of hyper-local government watchdog and advocacy groups have popped up in Maine — formed by residents fed up with how tax dollars are spent and with elected officials they believe do not listen.
CCC’s mission said Lorin LeCleire, a founding member, is to inform people how their tax dollars are being spent. The group came together when they felt that the small board “was doing things under the table” LeCleire said.
The group is pushing for more transparent information, publishing of notices, a website and easier access to public documents.
Concern over how dollars are spent also spawned the Concerned Citizens of Clifton.
“Like everyone else, we see escalating property taxes and a lack of transparency in how things are handled,” said LeCleire, a founding member. “We want more transparency in the municipal government and accountability.” “We try to be the voice of people in town.”
The group is intended to be progressive with a mission to "promote ethics and accountability in government and public life by targeting government officials - regardless of party affiliation - who sacrifice the common good to special interests." CCC will advance its mission by engaging in public advocacy, public discussions, creating a shadow board to review events, Freedom of Information Act requests, media outreach and official complaints to government agencies such as the Maine Municipal Association and Attorney General’s Office if warranted.
We commend anyone who offers to serve in an elected position; in fact we would encourage everyone to get involved serving on a committee or running for a select board or planning board position. As Maine Municipal states in their articles voters are angry, it’s not voter apathy, but the feeling that the deals are already cut and dried and their vote doesn’t matter – we opt to change that view of our town and have everyone involved in the decision making process.
A slew of hyper-local government watchdog and advocacy groups have popped up in Maine — formed by residents fed up with how tax dollars are spent and with elected officials they believe do not listen.
CCC’s mission said Lorin LeCleire, a founding member, is to inform people how their tax dollars are being spent. The group came together when they felt that the small board “was doing things under the table” LeCleire said.
The group is pushing for more transparent information, publishing of notices, a website and easier access to public documents.
Concern over how dollars are spent also spawned the Concerned Citizens of Clifton.
“Like everyone else, we see escalating property taxes and a lack of transparency in how things are handled,” said LeCleire, a founding member. “We want more transparency in the municipal government and accountability.” “We try to be the voice of people in town.”
The group is intended to be progressive with a mission to "promote ethics and accountability in government and public life by targeting government officials - regardless of party affiliation - who sacrifice the common good to special interests." CCC will advance its mission by engaging in public advocacy, public discussions, creating a shadow board to review events, Freedom of Information Act requests, media outreach and official complaints to government agencies such as the Maine Municipal Association and Attorney General’s Office if warranted.
We commend anyone who offers to serve in an elected position; in fact we would encourage everyone to get involved serving on a committee or running for a select board or planning board position. As Maine Municipal states in their articles voters are angry, it’s not voter apathy, but the feeling that the deals are already cut and dried and their vote doesn’t matter – we opt to change that view of our town and have everyone involved in the decision making process.
Conflicts on Plowing!
Conflicts of Interests, Contracts and Plowing
As is the usual case in most small Maine towns, those without a public works department, a contract is awarded for winter maintenance or as is commonly referred to as the “plow contract”.
In Clifton the voters have allowed the select board to enter into multiple year contracts in a effort to reduce costs, all vendors a chance to make it worth their efforts and to lower paperwork associated with contracts.
In general Clifton is governed by Maine Statute’s, policies and directives suggested by Maine Municipal Association (an Association much like the NRA or Maine Dairy Farmers, it does not own or direct the town, nor is there a requirement the town be a member of MMA) and ordinances and wishes established by its residents.
These cover a board section of town government including Freedom of Information, public meetings, ethics, code of conduct, bidding ordinances, contract administration and employment law to list a few.
Over the past several cycles the “plow” contract has been a renewal three year agreement with the selected contractor.
The Town of Clifton has a bid ordinance enacted and recently amended by the voters (2010) requiring competitive bidding. There is an outline of steps for bidding in the Maine Municpal Manual on page 114 and strong advise from MMA that MMA itself can provide a model plow contract.
The bid process itself has some basic steps: specifications for the job, publishing notices (to avoid challenges to the bid and allowing fair and open bidding; opening and reviewing bids; accepting and awarding the winning bid. MMA also suggests language to avoid conflict of interest or perceived conflicts when hiring employees or contractors.
This was the year for renewal of our “plow” contract, from all indications there was a public publishing of soliciting bids for winter sand and plowing.
At the September meeting sealed bids were opened the stock pile of sand and plowing.
It should be noted that many Maine towns attempt to keep the work in town and employee local business. To this end they have ordinances allowing a 10% over run, meaning as long as the local bidder is within 10% of the low bid, it may be awarded to the local contractor. However Clifton doesn’t have such an ordinance at the time of this writing. It does however reserve the right to reject any and all bids by plainly stating such on the invitation is it so chose to do so.
Bids were opened and the stock piling of sand went for the first time in recent memory to an out of town bidder, the usual in town bidder was higher by a few hundred dollars. Remember, this is key to the questions coming forward. It was moved to accept the low bid in an effort to save money. Not based on experience, keeping sand and plowing together to avoid conflicts and problems as has occurred in the past, but because it was the low bid.
Next was the awarding of the plow contract. There were two bids, that of a local bidder and that of a person from out of town. The difference in pricing was great, exceeding $10,000 dollars. The bid was awarded by the board to the local contractor for the same price as previous years. It appeared that all was well, IT IS NOT.
Somewhere or how in the next few weeks a move was undertaken to void the opened and awarded plow contract with motions by Hatch, Jordan and Beachamp.
At the October meeting calls were placed with other vendors (not formal bids) and in fact the bidder who had play his card and his pricing asked for the new formal bid – the answer was that the town didn’t have a written specification bid this time – in a flurry the clerk made calls and to protect there interest provided the old bid sheet to the contractor.
At the next meeting, in a deal that had folks around town commenting a “ back room deal” “good old boy network” “or they are friends and didn’t like the previous contractor”, bids were opened and this time the two bids were from the previous awarded contractor and previous winter maintenance contractor and a new contractor, the husband of the clerk.
Within seconds, a new bid was awarded by (Hatch, Jordan and Beachamp) to the husband of the clerk for $13,000 more than the low bid. It should be pointed out that the previous awarded bidder had lowered his bid from the previous bid by a $1,000. This is what we call GREAT management of our tax dollars – looks like the ethics problems have come to Clifton from another town.
This does not even pass the straight faced test! It doesn’t smell right or appear right. Was the bid re published in the paper inviting formal bids?. Was the previous contract award resinded? Was certified mail with 10 day notice, as required by the contract ever sent to the previous contractor? Was there a meeting with the previous contractor? Did the new contractor have experience with plowing our town roads? Were the same requirements applied to both contractors regarding equipment? Clearly NO since they are sanding at 20 mph with a pickup sander something prohibited under previous contracts.
In fact having ridden with previous contractors and videoed the plowing efforts I know that in one application of sanding it takes at least four full dump truck loads of sand. A minimum of two loads for Route 180 and two additional loads for the remainder of town. And this is just one application and most storms require multiple applications.
This is just the kind of process that gets town’s in hot water, creates law suits and gets voters to the point of “throw the bums out”!
We wonder why voters are angry –
As a former select person, customers (that is what residents are) called and commented to me that the road was ice on the first storm, something that hasn’t happened for a long time. I suggested calling the folks that voted for the new contractor or better yet make it a matter of public record – call the Regional Dispatch Center or the Maine Department of Transportation. Image my surprise when dispatch contacted the previous plow contractor to sand the roads. A few hours later a pickup comes screaming up the road with a “wheelbarrow” sander in the back attempting to sand – it was a waste and made no difference whatsoever in the conditions, in fact the bus turn around wasn’t even plowed or sanded.
So during the course of the winter to insure that proper record of complaints is filed I suggest that you contact Regional Dispatch at 945-4636. Dispatch will contact the plow contractor and send a duplicate information sheet to the select board – there is no sense getting involved in family matters at the town office.
As was the case years ago, we haven’t learned from out mistakes, we probably will wind up paying out the nose and spending thousands on lawyers and lawsuits. From what I hear we have spent that on lawyers already……
As is the usual case in most small Maine towns, those without a public works department, a contract is awarded for winter maintenance or as is commonly referred to as the “plow contract”.
In Clifton the voters have allowed the select board to enter into multiple year contracts in a effort to reduce costs, all vendors a chance to make it worth their efforts and to lower paperwork associated with contracts.
In general Clifton is governed by Maine Statute’s, policies and directives suggested by Maine Municipal Association (an Association much like the NRA or Maine Dairy Farmers, it does not own or direct the town, nor is there a requirement the town be a member of MMA) and ordinances and wishes established by its residents.
These cover a board section of town government including Freedom of Information, public meetings, ethics, code of conduct, bidding ordinances, contract administration and employment law to list a few.
Over the past several cycles the “plow” contract has been a renewal three year agreement with the selected contractor.
The Town of Clifton has a bid ordinance enacted and recently amended by the voters (2010) requiring competitive bidding. There is an outline of steps for bidding in the Maine Municpal Manual on page 114 and strong advise from MMA that MMA itself can provide a model plow contract.
The bid process itself has some basic steps: specifications for the job, publishing notices (to avoid challenges to the bid and allowing fair and open bidding; opening and reviewing bids; accepting and awarding the winning bid. MMA also suggests language to avoid conflict of interest or perceived conflicts when hiring employees or contractors.
This was the year for renewal of our “plow” contract, from all indications there was a public publishing of soliciting bids for winter sand and plowing.
At the September meeting sealed bids were opened the stock pile of sand and plowing.
It should be noted that many Maine towns attempt to keep the work in town and employee local business. To this end they have ordinances allowing a 10% over run, meaning as long as the local bidder is within 10% of the low bid, it may be awarded to the local contractor. However Clifton doesn’t have such an ordinance at the time of this writing. It does however reserve the right to reject any and all bids by plainly stating such on the invitation is it so chose to do so.
Bids were opened and the stock piling of sand went for the first time in recent memory to an out of town bidder, the usual in town bidder was higher by a few hundred dollars. Remember, this is key to the questions coming forward. It was moved to accept the low bid in an effort to save money. Not based on experience, keeping sand and plowing together to avoid conflicts and problems as has occurred in the past, but because it was the low bid.
Next was the awarding of the plow contract. There were two bids, that of a local bidder and that of a person from out of town. The difference in pricing was great, exceeding $10,000 dollars. The bid was awarded by the board to the local contractor for the same price as previous years. It appeared that all was well, IT IS NOT.
Somewhere or how in the next few weeks a move was undertaken to void the opened and awarded plow contract with motions by Hatch, Jordan and Beachamp.
At the October meeting calls were placed with other vendors (not formal bids) and in fact the bidder who had play his card and his pricing asked for the new formal bid – the answer was that the town didn’t have a written specification bid this time – in a flurry the clerk made calls and to protect there interest provided the old bid sheet to the contractor.
At the next meeting, in a deal that had folks around town commenting a “ back room deal” “good old boy network” “or they are friends and didn’t like the previous contractor”, bids were opened and this time the two bids were from the previous awarded contractor and previous winter maintenance contractor and a new contractor, the husband of the clerk.
Within seconds, a new bid was awarded by (Hatch, Jordan and Beachamp) to the husband of the clerk for $13,000 more than the low bid. It should be pointed out that the previous awarded bidder had lowered his bid from the previous bid by a $1,000. This is what we call GREAT management of our tax dollars – looks like the ethics problems have come to Clifton from another town.
This does not even pass the straight faced test! It doesn’t smell right or appear right. Was the bid re published in the paper inviting formal bids?. Was the previous contract award resinded? Was certified mail with 10 day notice, as required by the contract ever sent to the previous contractor? Was there a meeting with the previous contractor? Did the new contractor have experience with plowing our town roads? Were the same requirements applied to both contractors regarding equipment? Clearly NO since they are sanding at 20 mph with a pickup sander something prohibited under previous contracts.
In fact having ridden with previous contractors and videoed the plowing efforts I know that in one application of sanding it takes at least four full dump truck loads of sand. A minimum of two loads for Route 180 and two additional loads for the remainder of town. And this is just one application and most storms require multiple applications.
This is just the kind of process that gets town’s in hot water, creates law suits and gets voters to the point of “throw the bums out”!
We wonder why voters are angry –
As a former select person, customers (that is what residents are) called and commented to me that the road was ice on the first storm, something that hasn’t happened for a long time. I suggested calling the folks that voted for the new contractor or better yet make it a matter of public record – call the Regional Dispatch Center or the Maine Department of Transportation. Image my surprise when dispatch contacted the previous plow contractor to sand the roads. A few hours later a pickup comes screaming up the road with a “wheelbarrow” sander in the back attempting to sand – it was a waste and made no difference whatsoever in the conditions, in fact the bus turn around wasn’t even plowed or sanded.
So during the course of the winter to insure that proper record of complaints is filed I suggest that you contact Regional Dispatch at 945-4636. Dispatch will contact the plow contractor and send a duplicate information sheet to the select board – there is no sense getting involved in family matters at the town office.
As was the case years ago, we haven’t learned from out mistakes, we probably will wind up paying out the nose and spending thousands on lawyers and lawsuits. From what I hear we have spent that on lawyers already……
The Public's Trust
The Public’s Trust
It is an honor and privilege to serve as a public official; it is not a position of power or one to reward friends or co-workers or one to seek special favors or for financial gain.
As elected public officials there are certain core values critical to maintaining the public’s trust of their respective local government. Honesty, integrity and openness are some of the moral and ethical values topping the list for public officials.
The Freedom of Information Act, voting and the right to free speech are just some of the protections put in place to allow citizens the right to oversee their governments. While this cannot always stop back room deals and shady business practices, it allows the public a means by which to call out issues of concern. Power and greed many times confuse the issue of doing “what is just and right”.
A short time ago a local resident who was hired as an assistant for the Town of Clifton put forth excellent draft language for ordinance consideration to the board of selectman. There were two draft ordinances, the first related to a “code of ethics” and the second was “provisions for recalling selectman”. Neither of these two documents saw a true reading or public hearing, nor did they get presented to the citizens of the town at the annual town meeting. Instead they were filed away.
The standards to which we hold our public officials are high and rightfully so, with that in mind efforts should be made to insure we have a “code of conduct and ethics” along with “recall” provisions to protect the values and wishes of the residents.
As a member of the CCCC (Concerned Citizens of Clifton Council) it is our hope that selectman will draft a model Ethics and Recall provision can be drafted by Maine Municipal Association and presented to the citizens at the 2011 Annual Spring Meeting.
It is an honor and privilege to serve as a public official; it is not a position of power or one to reward friends or co-workers or one to seek special favors or for financial gain.
As elected public officials there are certain core values critical to maintaining the public’s trust of their respective local government. Honesty, integrity and openness are some of the moral and ethical values topping the list for public officials.
The Freedom of Information Act, voting and the right to free speech are just some of the protections put in place to allow citizens the right to oversee their governments. While this cannot always stop back room deals and shady business practices, it allows the public a means by which to call out issues of concern. Power and greed many times confuse the issue of doing “what is just and right”.
A short time ago a local resident who was hired as an assistant for the Town of Clifton put forth excellent draft language for ordinance consideration to the board of selectman. There were two draft ordinances, the first related to a “code of ethics” and the second was “provisions for recalling selectman”. Neither of these two documents saw a true reading or public hearing, nor did they get presented to the citizens of the town at the annual town meeting. Instead they were filed away.
The standards to which we hold our public officials are high and rightfully so, with that in mind efforts should be made to insure we have a “code of conduct and ethics” along with “recall” provisions to protect the values and wishes of the residents.
As a member of the CCCC (Concerned Citizens of Clifton Council) it is our hope that selectman will draft a model Ethics and Recall provision can be drafted by Maine Municipal Association and presented to the citizens at the 2011 Annual Spring Meeting.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Cutting
Well the crew has surveyed and is getting ready to move into the cutting position. Wood cutting that is, as many know, some of the Williams land were sold. Cutting was completed on the 180 lot and now the forwarders and hand crews are set to cut the Bobcat Rd lot before moving down the road to Amherset, they plan on select cuts as house lots are being considered in the five year plan. Lets hope the weather holds off and the road stays in good shape.
Carolyn Baker
While I was away in the Allagash we lost a dear friend, Carolyn Baker. My heart goes out to her and her family. I have known Carolyn since I was a youngin as her husband worked with "johnny" at the Water District and the pond. We shared many laughs over the years and will be strongly remembered.
18 July 2010
Carolyn Ann Shuman Baker
Carolyn Ann Shuman Baker EDDINGTON, ME - Carolyn Ann Shuman Baker, age 60, passed away at the Maine Medical Center, Portland Maine, July 12, 2010. She had been battling kidney disease for several years. She was a resident of Eddington ME. She is survived by her loving husband Charles Lewis Baker Sr., her sons Charles Lewis Baker Jr., Arthur Rodney Baker and wife Dianna and her daughter Dina Maria Baker. Carolyn (Lynn) was the daughter of the late Lawrence E. Shuman and Margaret Moore Shuman of Mt. Pleasant S.C. She had two brothers and six sisters, Lawrence E. Shuman Jr. and wife Donna, Harold S. Shuman and wife Emma, Rebecca S. Penington and husband Elliott, Catherine G. Shuman and Bernardine S. Walker and husband Cary all from Mt. Pleasant S.C. Margaret L. Hughes and husband James of Roscommon MI., Sarah S. Sherman and husband Mike from Charleston S.C. and Maria S. Hudson and husband Mark from the Isle of Palms S.C. She also had many nieces and nephews and great-nieces and nephews. She is also survived by her mother-in law Mary Baker and sisters in-law Cathy Baker and Becky Baker all of Eddington, Maine. Other relatives include her uncle the late Arthur B. Moore Jr. and wife Catherine M. Moore of Summerville, S.C., her aunt Ann E. Moore of Charleston S.C, her aunt James M. Dovre and husband Alfred of Mt. Pleasant S.C. and her uncle Jack Shuman and wife Barbara also from Mt. Pleasant S.C. Lynn was the first baby to be born in Charleston County on January 1, 1950. She attended Blessed Sacrament Catholic School in Charleston S.C., St. Mary Help of Christian's Catholic School in Aiken S.C. and she graduated from Huntsville High School in Huntsville Alabama. She also attended Calhoun Jr. College in Huntsville Alabama. Lynn moved to Eddington, Maine with her husband in July of 1969. Lynn was very active as a volunteer in her community. She worked as a librarian at the Clifton Library in Clifton, Maine for over 20 years. She was active in the Girl Scouts of America. She traveled with the Chess Team at John the Baptist Catholic High School in Bangor Maine. Funeral Services will be held in Eddington, Maine. A Memorial Mass will be said in Charleston, S.C. at a later date. In lieu of flowers, donations may be made in Lynn's memory to the Clifton Library, 135 Airline Road, Clifton, Maine 04428, attention Select Men of the Town of Clifton.
18 July 2010
Carolyn Ann Shuman Baker
Carolyn Ann Shuman Baker EDDINGTON, ME - Carolyn Ann Shuman Baker, age 60, passed away at the Maine Medical Center, Portland Maine, July 12, 2010. She had been battling kidney disease for several years. She was a resident of Eddington ME. She is survived by her loving husband Charles Lewis Baker Sr., her sons Charles Lewis Baker Jr., Arthur Rodney Baker and wife Dianna and her daughter Dina Maria Baker. Carolyn (Lynn) was the daughter of the late Lawrence E. Shuman and Margaret Moore Shuman of Mt. Pleasant S.C. She had two brothers and six sisters, Lawrence E. Shuman Jr. and wife Donna, Harold S. Shuman and wife Emma, Rebecca S. Penington and husband Elliott, Catherine G. Shuman and Bernardine S. Walker and husband Cary all from Mt. Pleasant S.C. Margaret L. Hughes and husband James of Roscommon MI., Sarah S. Sherman and husband Mike from Charleston S.C. and Maria S. Hudson and husband Mark from the Isle of Palms S.C. She also had many nieces and nephews and great-nieces and nephews. She is also survived by her mother-in law Mary Baker and sisters in-law Cathy Baker and Becky Baker all of Eddington, Maine. Other relatives include her uncle the late Arthur B. Moore Jr. and wife Catherine M. Moore of Summerville, S.C., her aunt Ann E. Moore of Charleston S.C, her aunt James M. Dovre and husband Alfred of Mt. Pleasant S.C. and her uncle Jack Shuman and wife Barbara also from Mt. Pleasant S.C. Lynn was the first baby to be born in Charleston County on January 1, 1950. She attended Blessed Sacrament Catholic School in Charleston S.C., St. Mary Help of Christian's Catholic School in Aiken S.C. and she graduated from Huntsville High School in Huntsville Alabama. She also attended Calhoun Jr. College in Huntsville Alabama. Lynn moved to Eddington, Maine with her husband in July of 1969. Lynn was very active as a volunteer in her community. She worked as a librarian at the Clifton Library in Clifton, Maine for over 20 years. She was active in the Girl Scouts of America. She traveled with the Chess Team at John the Baptist Catholic High School in Bangor Maine. Funeral Services will be held in Eddington, Maine. A Memorial Mass will be said in Charleston, S.C. at a later date. In lieu of flowers, donations may be made in Lynn's memory to the Clifton Library, 135 Airline Road, Clifton, Maine 04428, attention Select Men of the Town of Clifton.
Bear Season
Well another bear season is upon and things are busy. Looks to be a fair season, however weather conditions have not been very favorable. The morning breakfast at Amherset general shows the tote board a little behind last year, but as the weather changes things should improve.
The new book is out - Bear Hunting in Maine and is available at local stores and public library. In addition to the outdoor newspapers, articles have been selected by major publication for reprint from the mainefishgame site.
Wish you all the best in your travel in the woods and waters of Maine.
If you are looking for some last minute camping spots, don't forget the Machias River, just a few miles down Route 9, with plenty of sites and located on Maine longest free flowing river the joy of eagles, osprey, beaver and fish is bound to create enjoyment. Having spent much of the last month on the waterway and in the Allagash region during the heat, it was hard to find enough water to put the kayak in.
The new book is out - Bear Hunting in Maine and is available at local stores and public library. In addition to the outdoor newspapers, articles have been selected by major publication for reprint from the mainefishgame site.
Wish you all the best in your travel in the woods and waters of Maine.
If you are looking for some last minute camping spots, don't forget the Machias River, just a few miles down Route 9, with plenty of sites and located on Maine longest free flowing river the joy of eagles, osprey, beaver and fish is bound to create enjoyment. Having spent much of the last month on the waterway and in the Allagash region during the heat, it was hard to find enough water to put the kayak in.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Amherst Mountain Plan
The Maine Department of Conservation, Bureau of Parks and Lands invites
you to attend a Public Meeting on the Amherst Mountains Community Forest
Management Plan on March 17th at 6:30 p.m. at the Bangor Motor Inn &
Conference Center located at 701 Hogan Road in Bangor.
The Amherst Mountains Community Forest (AMCF) is a unique
state-municipal partnership involving 4,974 acres of forestland
surrounding six ponds in the town of Amherst. The parcel was acquired
by the Maine Department of Conservation with assistance from the Forest
Society of Maine in June of 2009, with funds from the Forest Legacy
Program, the Lands for Maine's Future program and numerous charitable
foundations and individuals.
The purpose of the Public Meeting is to collect information and to hear
comments from the general public regarding the management of this
parcel. Public knowledge of the region will help shape the plan, which
will provide resource protection and management guidance for this
property over the next 15-year period.
An Advisory Committee has been formed to provide additional input and to
review drafts of the plan. A second public meeting will be scheduled in
June to receive feedback on a final draft. Comments are invited
throughout the planning process.
More information on the management planning process is available at
http://www.maine.gov/doc/parks/programs/planning/amherstmountains/index.
shtml. Please feel free to contact me with questions or to submit
written comments.
Please circulate this invitation to interested parties.
Thank you.
Misha Mytar
Senior Planner
Maine Bureau of Parks & Lands
P.O. Box 343
Sullivan, ME 04664
(207) 460-4818
misha.mytar@maine.gov
www.parksandlands.com
you to attend a Public Meeting on the Amherst Mountains Community Forest
Management Plan on March 17th at 6:30 p.m. at the Bangor Motor Inn &
Conference Center located at 701 Hogan Road in Bangor.
The Amherst Mountains Community Forest (AMCF) is a unique
state-municipal partnership involving 4,974 acres of forestland
surrounding six ponds in the town of Amherst. The parcel was acquired
by the Maine Department of Conservation with assistance from the Forest
Society of Maine in June of 2009, with funds from the Forest Legacy
Program, the Lands for Maine's Future program and numerous charitable
foundations and individuals.
The purpose of the Public Meeting is to collect information and to hear
comments from the general public regarding the management of this
parcel. Public knowledge of the region will help shape the plan, which
will provide resource protection and management guidance for this
property over the next 15-year period.
An Advisory Committee has been formed to provide additional input and to
review drafts of the plan. A second public meeting will be scheduled in
June to receive feedback on a final draft. Comments are invited
throughout the planning process.
More information on the management planning process is available at
http://www.maine.gov/doc/parks/programs/planning/amherstmountains/index.
shtml. Please feel free to contact me with questions or to submit
written comments.
Please circulate this invitation to interested parties.
Thank you.
Misha Mytar
Senior Planner
Maine Bureau of Parks & Lands
P.O. Box 343
Sullivan, ME 04664
(207) 460-4818
misha.mytar@maine.gov
www.parksandlands.com
Amherst Mountain Plan
The Maine Department of Conservation, Bureau of Parks and Lands invites
you to attend a Public Meeting on the Amherst Mountains Community Forest
Management Plan on March 17th at 6:30 p.m. at the Bangor Motor Inn &
Conference Center located at 701 Hogan Road in Bangor.
The Amherst Mountains Community Forest (AMCF) is a unique
state-municipal partnership involving 4,974 acres of forestland
surrounding six ponds in the town of Amherst. The parcel was acquired
by the Maine Department of Conservation with assistance from the Forest
Society of Maine in June of 2009, with funds from the Forest Legacy
Program, the Lands for Maine's Future program and numerous charitable
foundations and individuals.
The purpose of the Public Meeting is to collect information and to hear
comments from the general public regarding the management of this
parcel. Public knowledge of the region will help shape the plan, which
will provide resource protection and management guidance for this
property over the next 15-year period.
An Advisory Committee has been formed to provide additional input and to
review drafts of the plan. A second public meeting will be scheduled in
June to receive feedback on a final draft. Comments are invited
throughout the planning process.
More information on the management planning process is available at
http://www.maine.gov/doc/parks/programs/planning/amherstmountains/index.
shtml. Please feel free to contact me with questions or to submit
written comments.
Please circulate this invitation to interested parties.
Thank you.
Misha Mytar
Senior Planner
Maine Bureau of Parks & Lands
P.O. Box 343
Sullivan, ME 04664
(207) 460-4818
misha.mytar@maine.gov
www.parksandlands.com
you to attend a Public Meeting on the Amherst Mountains Community Forest
Management Plan on March 17th at 6:30 p.m. at the Bangor Motor Inn &
Conference Center located at 701 Hogan Road in Bangor.
The Amherst Mountains Community Forest (AMCF) is a unique
state-municipal partnership involving 4,974 acres of forestland
surrounding six ponds in the town of Amherst. The parcel was acquired
by the Maine Department of Conservation with assistance from the Forest
Society of Maine in June of 2009, with funds from the Forest Legacy
Program, the Lands for Maine's Future program and numerous charitable
foundations and individuals.
The purpose of the Public Meeting is to collect information and to hear
comments from the general public regarding the management of this
parcel. Public knowledge of the region will help shape the plan, which
will provide resource protection and management guidance for this
property over the next 15-year period.
An Advisory Committee has been formed to provide additional input and to
review drafts of the plan. A second public meeting will be scheduled in
June to receive feedback on a final draft. Comments are invited
throughout the planning process.
More information on the management planning process is available at
http://www.maine.gov/doc/parks/programs/planning/amherstmountains/index.
shtml. Please feel free to contact me with questions or to submit
written comments.
Please circulate this invitation to interested parties.
Thank you.
Misha Mytar
Senior Planner
Maine Bureau of Parks & Lands
P.O. Box 343
Sullivan, ME 04664
(207) 460-4818
misha.mytar@maine.gov
www.parksandlands.com
Monday, March 8, 2010
Never Enough Time
I would like to share a few thoughts on information. The blog world, facebooke, myspace, instant message and all the other social networks really keeps folks in touch. But in a rural small town, without anything but dial up service, where most people are blue collar workers - getting the word out is all but impossible. Second to that is getting folks to understand certain programs and complete PAPERWORK.
I talking around town with friends (very little of them) and neighbors I am shocked to find that many or most have never heard of the homestead exemption. The state program that reimburses the town up to $13,000 of valuation and reduces your taxes by $13,000 evaluation or at 11.11 mill rate per $1,000 = $145 off your tax bill. You can say its in the town report, but do people one get the report and two do they read and understand it? There is also a veterans and farm exemption program.
Then comes the land use ordinance. I asked about what people thought about the proposed ordinance and if they had heard about it. The answer was no, yet they do remember seeing the ads in the recent newsletter, but the rest was jumbo reading. Needs to be flashy, eye catchers and pictures. I told most they could view the document on line - but no internet service or the town office, it was a few hundred pages long - we don't go to the office except to register the car and certainly don't have time to read such a document.
Then a resident gave it to me straight. We get up at 5 a.m., get ready for work, kids for school. Go to work, then home, school work, try to figure out supper. We are worried about what we can afford for groceries and how to make rent/house payment and gasoline for the car. Then to bed and get ready for the next day. The only paper we read is at work, if they get it. Family is first, don't have time to travel around and visit all these things. Our only day off is weekends, the town office is closed and if it was open, that is our family time.
There you have it in a nut shell! And I think this is the case for most working people. Only self employed or retired folks really have the time to committ to learning all these things. Those others that are involved are gifted and are cutting down on family time without question.
So how to we inform our citizens about programs that can save them money? I was talking with people that bought homes and didn't know about the thousands they can get back under the federal program. People that don't have health or let alone life insurance. Folks that don't know how to do a 1040 form.
Very few knew about the food pantry.
EVERYONE I SPOKE WITH IS BROKE, there is little if any savings and decisions are being made daily on fuel oil or groceries. So many are laid off - about 75 of our 750or so residents.
I don't have the answers, but when folks aren't educated by the their leaders about basic programs we have problems. I really would like to hear any ideas that you might have on how we can educate our residents.
I talking around town with friends (very little of them) and neighbors I am shocked to find that many or most have never heard of the homestead exemption. The state program that reimburses the town up to $13,000 of valuation and reduces your taxes by $13,000 evaluation or at 11.11 mill rate per $1,000 = $145 off your tax bill. You can say its in the town report, but do people one get the report and two do they read and understand it? There is also a veterans and farm exemption program.
Then comes the land use ordinance. I asked about what people thought about the proposed ordinance and if they had heard about it. The answer was no, yet they do remember seeing the ads in the recent newsletter, but the rest was jumbo reading. Needs to be flashy, eye catchers and pictures. I told most they could view the document on line - but no internet service or the town office, it was a few hundred pages long - we don't go to the office except to register the car and certainly don't have time to read such a document.
Then a resident gave it to me straight. We get up at 5 a.m., get ready for work, kids for school. Go to work, then home, school work, try to figure out supper. We are worried about what we can afford for groceries and how to make rent/house payment and gasoline for the car. Then to bed and get ready for the next day. The only paper we read is at work, if they get it. Family is first, don't have time to travel around and visit all these things. Our only day off is weekends, the town office is closed and if it was open, that is our family time.
There you have it in a nut shell! And I think this is the case for most working people. Only self employed or retired folks really have the time to committ to learning all these things. Those others that are involved are gifted and are cutting down on family time without question.
So how to we inform our citizens about programs that can save them money? I was talking with people that bought homes and didn't know about the thousands they can get back under the federal program. People that don't have health or let alone life insurance. Folks that don't know how to do a 1040 form.
Very few knew about the food pantry.
EVERYONE I SPOKE WITH IS BROKE, there is little if any savings and decisions are being made daily on fuel oil or groceries. So many are laid off - about 75 of our 750or so residents.
I don't have the answers, but when folks aren't educated by the their leaders about basic programs we have problems. I really would like to hear any ideas that you might have on how we can educate our residents.
Town Report
The Clifton Town Report is available now at the Clifton Country Store or the Town Office a must read for Annual Meeting on March 20th.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Short Stories
After the first book on Bear Hunting in Maine I have been working on a few others. One on how to serve in local rural politics, another Maine Professional Guide Manual, then Life on Alligator and a secret special one. However I have started posting short stories at www.registeredguide.blogspot.com, a link on this page. Hope you enjoy the reads. www.mainefishgame.blogspot.com is kinda of home to the various blogs. At this point I think I am running 29 blogs on various topics including a seperate blog for some famous lakes and ponds. This will allow fisherman and other outdoor folk to add their stories for others to enjoy. Lorin
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
SAD63 Scare
Is SAD63 trying to scare us, sending home a newsletter with budget information talking about an $800,000 short fall and possible 20% taxpayer increase. Talk about a Tea Party Revolt, they must be nuts. If this is the case we better increase class size to state ratio, lay off teachers, cut business manager, do our own payroll and contract out busing. This is like saying the proposed local shoreland zoning ordnance not any more restrictive than the states - if so why do we need it, use the states.
An $800,000 is not all the states fault - it is a lack of planning and poor management, plain and simple. In the real world at a business that means cuts, job sharing and layoff's, SAD63 is no different. It time to take a hard look at mid level and top administration positions. Can we have a foreman or lead man instead of a department head, can we contract out services. We all have to give and if teachers are not interested in opening contracts, then increase ratio of class and reduce staffing. 20% is not acceptable.
An $800,000 is not all the states fault - it is a lack of planning and poor management, plain and simple. In the real world at a business that means cuts, job sharing and layoff's, SAD63 is no different. It time to take a hard look at mid level and top administration positions. Can we have a foreman or lead man instead of a department head, can we contract out services. We all have to give and if teachers are not interested in opening contracts, then increase ratio of class and reduce staffing. 20% is not acceptable.
Cleaning Help and Budget Reduction
I recall years ago with school cuts that students were responsible for their classrooms at the end of each day. They not only swept and picked up the room, but set the trash outside the door for the janitor to pickup. This is a win win, the students learn skills and responsibility, the janitors life and work is reduced so they can have more time to do other projects. I am not talking cleaning and using chemcials, but every day chore in the room. The chemical issue is something different, in fact many schools have switched to "green" chem free cleaning products to avoid such issues. Why is it that what works in the private school or sector can not be done in the public sector.
From the papers that come home each day to newsletter I wonder how much time a teacher or staff spends at the photocopier machine. If the janitor was freed up a few hours by the team cleaning their rooms, why couldn't the janitor at night do the copying for the next day. This is all part of the team approach, everyone owns a peice of the puzzle.
From the papers that come home each day to newsletter I wonder how much time a teacher or staff spends at the photocopier machine. If the janitor was freed up a few hours by the team cleaning their rooms, why couldn't the janitor at night do the copying for the next day. This is all part of the team approach, everyone owns a peice of the puzzle.
School a Commuinty Building
The school is owned by the taxpayers of many different communities in SAD 63, Eddington, Holden and Clifton. The school should be the center of the community and seek or offer to allow groups and activities within. Many school districts offer free internet to residents and in the case of Otis and the management of their school budget offer something that is priceless in the day and age of both parents working. After school care and programs until 6PM each day. No lackkey kids or kids left home running the road, endanger of trying to cook something, or strangers invading a home. A community that is looking to protect its town and kids. Kids can also get tutoring or free gym. There is always the respoonse that we are not the "Y" or can't handle anymore. We all are doing MORE with LESS and in some cases with nothing. What a great way for the community to come together between Ed techs, janitors lending a hand or other staff. We could even start a volunteer program of parents on a rotating schedule to work and mentor our youth, why not in SAD63 and Holbrook. In fact Holbrook doesn't have a booster group or PTF, there is very little parent involvement programs, or fundraising for special projects. This is junior high and support - mentoring is needed more now than ever.
Tuition
Clifton does not have a school, yet? Nor do we have a private academy, yet? What we do have is the right to withdraw from SAD63 and tuition our students to the school of choice. As the 20% budget increase proposed comes near to vote. It might be time to consider doing just that.
Cell Phones, Drinks and Buses
Laptops, computers, DS, cellular phones and more technology equipment is used and being developed everyday to improve our lifes. With it also comes risks and common sense rules. Recently some kids at Brewer were suspended for comments made at home on their computer regarding another school and sports team. While this wasn't the brightest thing they could have done, in my mind it is protected speech. It wasn't on school property, school time or school equipment. If this is the case maybe the school teachers unions should be posting comments about budget cuts or such material. There is a supreme court case ruling in favor of protected speech by public employee - the same holds true in this case.
Now on to cellular phones, they are a fact of life, at school, home, work and just about everywhere we go. There are signs about phone use in hospitals and work places. Work places are now stepping up to restrict use during the day work hours, especially in texting. How many meetings have you been to that someones phone rings?
I agree that cell phones are valuable and can be life saving, but some rules in schools should apply. Trying to find your kid, leave a note for after school, learning where your child or how they are getting home is critical, especially when both parents are working. But SAD63 has not kept pace with the modern world and has double standards on cellular phones. I agree kids should not be allowed to have the phone ON during class, but during break, recess, lunch or at end of day should be allowed to listen to messages or receive a text from home. If bus drivers, staff and teachers can have them on and use them, even stopping class to take a call. Then limited use by kids should be allowed. What is really nice is to listen or watch the records kids do on the bus of activities or words. Most phones take pictures, video and record. You would be suprised by some of the language used.
Then there is the restriction on certain drinks in class. If the child can not have AZ ice tea, then the teacher should not have one in class and drink it in front of the kids. This really is mixed messages.
As part of budget cuts cameras were removed from the bus. Not a day goes by without some type of incident, yet there is no tape, just an empty camera box. There is no way to tell if the bus is moving without kids seated, if brakes are slammed on to get attention, how is jumping around, pushing, fighting and such. We put all this security in place to lock down the school - lets face it, if you want in, just arrive early, late or wait for someone to come out - but no security on the bus holding 45 kids. Is this a good priority?
Now on to cellular phones, they are a fact of life, at school, home, work and just about everywhere we go. There are signs about phone use in hospitals and work places. Work places are now stepping up to restrict use during the day work hours, especially in texting. How many meetings have you been to that someones phone rings?
I agree that cell phones are valuable and can be life saving, but some rules in schools should apply. Trying to find your kid, leave a note for after school, learning where your child or how they are getting home is critical, especially when both parents are working. But SAD63 has not kept pace with the modern world and has double standards on cellular phones. I agree kids should not be allowed to have the phone ON during class, but during break, recess, lunch or at end of day should be allowed to listen to messages or receive a text from home. If bus drivers, staff and teachers can have them on and use them, even stopping class to take a call. Then limited use by kids should be allowed. What is really nice is to listen or watch the records kids do on the bus of activities or words. Most phones take pictures, video and record. You would be suprised by some of the language used.
Then there is the restriction on certain drinks in class. If the child can not have AZ ice tea, then the teacher should not have one in class and drink it in front of the kids. This really is mixed messages.
As part of budget cuts cameras were removed from the bus. Not a day goes by without some type of incident, yet there is no tape, just an empty camera box. There is no way to tell if the bus is moving without kids seated, if brakes are slammed on to get attention, how is jumping around, pushing, fighting and such. We put all this security in place to lock down the school - lets face it, if you want in, just arrive early, late or wait for someone to come out - but no security on the bus holding 45 kids. Is this a good priority?
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Roaming Dogs
Over the past few weeks we have had a problem with roaming dogs chasing the livestock, horses and calf. It started out as coyotes in the back pasture doing the chasing, but no shots were taken. Then I looked out last week and saw the coyote coming out of the woods in pursuit of the calf. The .308 with special varmit load (.55gr) was put into action. Just as I was about to dispatch the coyote, with pressure on the trigger I thought something wasn't right. I took the tension off the trigger and clapped my hands. With that the animal stopped and looked directly at me. Using the scope I could see this was a dog with coloring like a coyote. I fired a shot near the creature and it took off running. However that night and the next day they were back chasing the critters. By now there were several calls to the Animal Control and local Game Warden. Then I got a call from the ACO that two dogs matching my discription had attacke a lady in her driveway on the next road over. Then an hour later there was a report of two dead dogs on another road. Upon investigation by the ACO, it appears the dogs were at the end of a driveway. The ACO knocked on the door and the person claimed responsibiilty for the dogs - this person had been warned on at least two occasions regarding the dogs. In fact a few months earlier they had bitten another resident.
So I thought all was taken care of, that is until Sunday when the two dogs were back chasing the livestock. Monday morning they were back again, this time on fresh snow. More calls to the ACO. I put the gear together, including a shotgun, and started a track. I finaly caught up with the dogs, an older dog that had all it could to to walk and a mixed shepard. They would stop, but would not let me near them. I went door to door on Rt 180, Clewely Rd, Route 9, Mill Lane and Molly Road attempting to locate the owner. I had several folks tell me the dogs had been around for a while and were chasing deer and pets. I got back home upset that I could not find the owners, no collars on the dogs could be seen. Then the phone rang, it was a person on Rt 9 about a mile away reporting that she was out with her dog on a leash when suddenly these two dogs came out of the woods and started chasing her. They followed her back home, her husband went after the dogs, but they took off. Are these dropped off dogs or a person that goes to work and lets them run free. What ever is the case it is sad that they will get hit by a car or destroyed for something that the owners are responsible for. But damage to people or to livestock can not be allowed to continue. In fact it is clear from the tracks the dogs have been visiting the local deer yard, however I could not find any blood or injured deer at this time.
So I thought all was taken care of, that is until Sunday when the two dogs were back chasing the livestock. Monday morning they were back again, this time on fresh snow. More calls to the ACO. I put the gear together, including a shotgun, and started a track. I finaly caught up with the dogs, an older dog that had all it could to to walk and a mixed shepard. They would stop, but would not let me near them. I went door to door on Rt 180, Clewely Rd, Route 9, Mill Lane and Molly Road attempting to locate the owner. I had several folks tell me the dogs had been around for a while and were chasing deer and pets. I got back home upset that I could not find the owners, no collars on the dogs could be seen. Then the phone rang, it was a person on Rt 9 about a mile away reporting that she was out with her dog on a leash when suddenly these two dogs came out of the woods and started chasing her. They followed her back home, her husband went after the dogs, but they took off. Are these dropped off dogs or a person that goes to work and lets them run free. What ever is the case it is sad that they will get hit by a car or destroyed for something that the owners are responsible for. But damage to people or to livestock can not be allowed to continue. In fact it is clear from the tracks the dogs have been visiting the local deer yard, however I could not find any blood or injured deer at this time.
Brewer Cabin Fever Releiver
Wow what a great thing in Brewer, the annual Cabin Fever Reliever. A free sportsman show and fly tying this past weekend. Show was both for young and old, great job and contained much information on the outdoors with demos and friends.
March 4th
Big meeting, informal informational meeting I should say on the proposed land use ordinances. Starts at 7PM and all shoudl attend, especially if you own land in Clifton.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Newsletter
CLIFTON NEWS LETTER
Volume 1, Issue 1 Spring 2010
ANNUAL TOWN MEETING
SATURDAY MARCH 20, 2010
Voting 8 a.m. – 12 p.m. for Select and School Board Member
Meeting Starts 1:30PM
Absentee ballots are available at the Town Office.
The Town Report, with budget and articles, will soon be available at Clifton Country Store and at the Town Office. Bring to the meeting please.
CANDIDATES FOR OFFICE
SELECT BOARD
Nancy Hatch
Brian Melvin
SCHOOL BOARD
Jessica Gray
THE CLIFTON PLANNING BOARD INVITES YOU TO AN INFORMAL INFORMATIONAL MEETING ON THE PROPOSED LAND USE ORDINANCE
WHEN: THURSDAY, MARCH 4 TIME: 7:00 PM
WHERE: CLIFTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING
LAND USE REGULATIONS AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE
The planning board has been working for some time on developing a land use and zoning ordinance for the town. You can view their work at http://sites.google.com/stie/cliftonmaineplanningboard/home. You are encouraged to attend the monthly Planning Board Meetings or workshops as they are posted.
QUESTION: WHAT IS A LAND USE ORDINANCE?
ANSWER: A LAND USE ORDINANCE COMBINES ALL THE TOWN’S ORDINANCES THAT ARE ADMINISTERED BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE BOARD OF APPEALS INTO ONE COMPREHENSIVE AND COORDINATED SYSTEM OF REGULATION.
WHY? TO GET RID OF INCONSISTENCIES AND CONFLICTS BETWEEN
ORDINANCES AND TO MAKE A MORE FLEXIBLE AND UNDERSTANDABLE PROCESS FOR THE APPLICANT AND FOR THE TOWN
One of the most important questions being asked of the Planning Board about the Land Use Ordinance:
“Isn’t the Land Use Ordinance (LUO) stricter than the Ordinances we have now?”
Provisions of the LUO that are the same or similar to existing ordinances:
• Single family homes are allowed everywhere in Town.
• The Code Enforcement Officer permits single and two family homes everywhere except in the Shore land, where site plan review by the Planning Board is needed.
• Shore land zoning applies to 250’ around great ponds and freshwater wetlands and 75’ along streams.
• Preservation of open space is encouraged.
• Land with steep slopes is not developable.
• Compliance with performance standards for commercial and industrial development ensures that other landowners are not unreasonably harmed.
Provisions of the LUO that are less restrictive than existing ordinances:
• Multi-family housing is allowed.
• Setbacks are reduced on local roads and private ways.
• Lot size and setbacks can be reduced for a cluster subdivision.
• Owners of non-conforming undeveloped lots of record in the Shore land Resource Protection District can apply for a ‘special exception’ building permit.
• Many proposed small businesses can qualify for Home Occupation Level 1 (allowed without a permit) or Home Occupation Level 2 (requires CEO permit only) instead of Planning Board non-residential site plan review.
• Landowners with enough acreage but not enough road frontage can create a lot in the back (a ‘flag lot’).
• Accessory residential units are allowed.
Provisions of the LUO that are more restrictive than existing ordinances:
• By state mandate, more freshwater wetlands are designated “Resource Protection” as high or moderate value waterfowl and wading bird habitat.
• Most moderate and high impact commercial and industrial development is restricted to certain designated areas of Town.
• Mobile home parks (but not individual mobile homes) are more restricted in location.
Significant improvements that the LUO would bring to the Town:
• More and better mapping with digital copies available.
• One set of uniform definitions.
• On-line accessibility of ordinances and information.
• Clearer separation and coordination of CEO and Planning Board duties and responsibilities.
• Shore land and Floodplain provisions compliant with state and federal mandates.
• Reduces Planning Board involvement with smaller projects and gives CEO more latitude.
• Improved and more practical groundwater protection wording.
• Public hearings for interested parties input will be required for specific development such as; industrial wind energy facilities, adult businesses, substance abuse facilities, sexual offender clinics, etc.
• One flexible and multi-purpose application procedure instead of multiple rigid and single-purpose procedures.
• Clarifies vague environmental impact statement requirement with clear and concise guidelines for the applicant.
SPRING CLEAN UP
Spring clean up is going to held June 5th and 6th. For additional information on allowed materials and to pre register if you have not been to clean up before, contact the Town Office.
FOOD CUPBOARD
The Clifton Community Food Bank has been established at the Clifton Baptist Church. The food bank is associated with the Good Shepard Food Bank program in Augusta. The food cupboard is open to all residents on Mondays from 2 p.m. -4 p.m., weather and holidays permitting. Donations are also welcomed.
THE NEWSLETTER
Welcome to the first printing of the Clifton Newsletter, a communication method developed to inform residents. Suggestions for the Newsletter are welcome and will be included where appropriate. When making a submission, please include your name and a phone number so that we may contact you if we need further explaination or clarification. In order to produce this newsletter at reduced costs, the town is seeking business owners who would like to help sponsor the newsletter. Please contact the town office or send your business card to be reviewed by the board. For $25 your advertisement will reach many homes in Clifton. All material is reviewed and approved by the select board prior to publication.
Please support our local sponsors!
Volume 1, Issue 1 Spring 2010
ANNUAL TOWN MEETING
SATURDAY MARCH 20, 2010
Voting 8 a.m. – 12 p.m. for Select and School Board Member
Meeting Starts 1:30PM
Absentee ballots are available at the Town Office.
The Town Report, with budget and articles, will soon be available at Clifton Country Store and at the Town Office. Bring to the meeting please.
CANDIDATES FOR OFFICE
SELECT BOARD
Nancy Hatch
Brian Melvin
SCHOOL BOARD
Jessica Gray
THE CLIFTON PLANNING BOARD INVITES YOU TO AN INFORMAL INFORMATIONAL MEETING ON THE PROPOSED LAND USE ORDINANCE
WHEN: THURSDAY, MARCH 4 TIME: 7:00 PM
WHERE: CLIFTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING
LAND USE REGULATIONS AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE
The planning board has been working for some time on developing a land use and zoning ordinance for the town. You can view their work at http://sites.google.com/stie/cliftonmaineplanningboard/home. You are encouraged to attend the monthly Planning Board Meetings or workshops as they are posted.
QUESTION: WHAT IS A LAND USE ORDINANCE?
ANSWER: A LAND USE ORDINANCE COMBINES ALL THE TOWN’S ORDINANCES THAT ARE ADMINISTERED BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE BOARD OF APPEALS INTO ONE COMPREHENSIVE AND COORDINATED SYSTEM OF REGULATION.
WHY? TO GET RID OF INCONSISTENCIES AND CONFLICTS BETWEEN
ORDINANCES AND TO MAKE A MORE FLEXIBLE AND UNDERSTANDABLE PROCESS FOR THE APPLICANT AND FOR THE TOWN
One of the most important questions being asked of the Planning Board about the Land Use Ordinance:
“Isn’t the Land Use Ordinance (LUO) stricter than the Ordinances we have now?”
Provisions of the LUO that are the same or similar to existing ordinances:
• Single family homes are allowed everywhere in Town.
• The Code Enforcement Officer permits single and two family homes everywhere except in the Shore land, where site plan review by the Planning Board is needed.
• Shore land zoning applies to 250’ around great ponds and freshwater wetlands and 75’ along streams.
• Preservation of open space is encouraged.
• Land with steep slopes is not developable.
• Compliance with performance standards for commercial and industrial development ensures that other landowners are not unreasonably harmed.
Provisions of the LUO that are less restrictive than existing ordinances:
• Multi-family housing is allowed.
• Setbacks are reduced on local roads and private ways.
• Lot size and setbacks can be reduced for a cluster subdivision.
• Owners of non-conforming undeveloped lots of record in the Shore land Resource Protection District can apply for a ‘special exception’ building permit.
• Many proposed small businesses can qualify for Home Occupation Level 1 (allowed without a permit) or Home Occupation Level 2 (requires CEO permit only) instead of Planning Board non-residential site plan review.
• Landowners with enough acreage but not enough road frontage can create a lot in the back (a ‘flag lot’).
• Accessory residential units are allowed.
Provisions of the LUO that are more restrictive than existing ordinances:
• By state mandate, more freshwater wetlands are designated “Resource Protection” as high or moderate value waterfowl and wading bird habitat.
• Most moderate and high impact commercial and industrial development is restricted to certain designated areas of Town.
• Mobile home parks (but not individual mobile homes) are more restricted in location.
Significant improvements that the LUO would bring to the Town:
• More and better mapping with digital copies available.
• One set of uniform definitions.
• On-line accessibility of ordinances and information.
• Clearer separation and coordination of CEO and Planning Board duties and responsibilities.
• Shore land and Floodplain provisions compliant with state and federal mandates.
• Reduces Planning Board involvement with smaller projects and gives CEO more latitude.
• Improved and more practical groundwater protection wording.
• Public hearings for interested parties input will be required for specific development such as; industrial wind energy facilities, adult businesses, substance abuse facilities, sexual offender clinics, etc.
• One flexible and multi-purpose application procedure instead of multiple rigid and single-purpose procedures.
• Clarifies vague environmental impact statement requirement with clear and concise guidelines for the applicant.
SPRING CLEAN UP
Spring clean up is going to held June 5th and 6th. For additional information on allowed materials and to pre register if you have not been to clean up before, contact the Town Office.
FOOD CUPBOARD
The Clifton Community Food Bank has been established at the Clifton Baptist Church. The food bank is associated with the Good Shepard Food Bank program in Augusta. The food cupboard is open to all residents on Mondays from 2 p.m. -4 p.m., weather and holidays permitting. Donations are also welcomed.
THE NEWSLETTER
Welcome to the first printing of the Clifton Newsletter, a communication method developed to inform residents. Suggestions for the Newsletter are welcome and will be included where appropriate. When making a submission, please include your name and a phone number so that we may contact you if we need further explaination or clarification. In order to produce this newsletter at reduced costs, the town is seeking business owners who would like to help sponsor the newsletter. Please contact the town office or send your business card to be reviewed by the board. For $25 your advertisement will reach many homes in Clifton. All material is reviewed and approved by the select board prior to publication.
Please support our local sponsors!
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
TOWN MEETING
Mark your calendars the Annual Town Meeting is the third Saturday of March and starts at 1:30PM.
Education
Well it has been a while my friends and the winter has been long. A lot is being undertaken or talked about regarding our current state of education, that of SAD 63 and the RSU or AOS. I would like to provide a couple of ideas that one might consider. First Clifton has no schools, we are currently a member of SAD 63, of which we could withdraw. Paying over $600,000 a year for 150 students works out to about $4,000 per student. Yet we face over hour bus rides to school, no after school program like Otis offers and there always seems to be turmoil in the district.
How about we withdraw from SAD63 and look at doing things a little different.
1. How about forming an AOS with CSD8, Otis, Amherst, Aurora, Osborn, Great Pond and Clifton.
2. How about no school - so we just tuition our kids to the school of choice, say either Otis or Eddington or Holbrook, much like we do with High Schools.
3. Maybe we should explore creating an academy like Dover and many others do. Then we recruit world wide for students to help off set costs.
We need good busing, after school, sports programs, homeschool study groups, a community school welcomes and that is open to any groups for use. Extra education or workshops on adult education, or maybe cooking, ATV/Sled safety, firearm safety. We need to get back to "community". The current system treats us like they are doing us a favor - it should be pointed out that we the citizens are in charge and the educators and administrators work for the citizens. I would very much like to hear your thoughts on the education system currently before us, its not all about power and control - it should be about education, boosting our youths adventures and seeing that we can move them ahead, hopefully college and a better life.
How about we withdraw from SAD63 and look at doing things a little different.
1. How about forming an AOS with CSD8, Otis, Amherst, Aurora, Osborn, Great Pond and Clifton.
2. How about no school - so we just tuition our kids to the school of choice, say either Otis or Eddington or Holbrook, much like we do with High Schools.
3. Maybe we should explore creating an academy like Dover and many others do. Then we recruit world wide for students to help off set costs.
We need good busing, after school, sports programs, homeschool study groups, a community school welcomes and that is open to any groups for use. Extra education or workshops on adult education, or maybe cooking, ATV/Sled safety, firearm safety. We need to get back to "community". The current system treats us like they are doing us a favor - it should be pointed out that we the citizens are in charge and the educators and administrators work for the citizens. I would very much like to hear your thoughts on the education system currently before us, its not all about power and control - it should be about education, boosting our youths adventures and seeing that we can move them ahead, hopefully college and a better life.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Clifton Man Sailer for New Independence
Sailor from Clifton eager for new Independence
By Nok-Noi Ricker
BDN Staff
BANGOR, Maine — The U.S. Navy has a pretty neat new boat in the water, and a man who grew up in Clifton is one of its 40-sailor crew.
Petty Officer 1st Class Bryan Hayes is a gas turbine technician aboard the USS Independence, a 418-foot trimaran, or three-hull, warship built for speed and its ability to travel into shallow waters.
“I’m working towards taking over the ship and sailing it” someday, Hayes said this week by phone from Mobile, Ala., where the vessel was built and will be commissioned into the Navy’s fleet on Jan. 16.
The vessel has two crews, and Hayes, a 1997 Brewer High School graduate, is an engineer on the first crew. He, along with the rest of the crew members, wear three or four other hats and work alongside automated machinery within the next-generation vessel.
“It’s the Navy’s newest program, and it’s unlike anything you’ve ever seen,” Jan Bowers, a Navy spokeswoman based in California, said this week of the Independence. “She can turn on a dime … [and] Bryan is part of a revolutionary crew.”
When Hayes, 30, recently re-enlisted aboard the newfangled littoral combat ship, he was the first sailor to do so, Lt. Cmdr. Chris Servello said.
“He kind of made history,” he said.
Hayes joined the Navy in 1998, after working for Getchell Bros. of Brewer for a year after high school. He spent 8½ years working with the Navy’s hoverboat program, and said the second he saw the Independence — with its distinctive aluminum hull, massive steerable waterjets and automated systems — that he knew he wanted to be a part of the pilot program.
“It’s a new, interesting boat,” he said. “I thought, ‘It’s pretty cool-looking and I want to be involved with it.’ It has new technology and it’s a new way of thinking for the Navy.”
The trimaran hull shape allows for a wide flight deck that can accommodate a helicopter and can handle choppy seas, and the boat has interchangeable equipment, including an unmanned submarine, which can be swapped out to match up with the type of mission the vessel is on.
The Navy is planning to build a fleet of new littoral combat ships, and is trying to decide between two prototypes — the trimaran Independence built by General Dynamics Corp., parent company of Bath Iron Works, and the Freedom, a monohull built by Lockheed Martin Corp.
The Independence, dubbed the LCS2, was built by Austal USA in Mobile, Ala., and the lead contractor was BIW. The 378-foot Freedom, the LCS1, has a steel hull and looks like a conventional warship. It was built by Lockheed in Marinette, Wis.
The costs of the two ships is about double the originally estimates of $220 million because the Navy wanted them built faster and with specific requirements for technology, speed and shallow-water accessibility.
The Independence reached highway speeds — 44 knots, or 52 mph — and maintained them for four hours during its Navy acceptance trials, held with in the Gulf of Mexico during mid-November.
The November issue of BIW News called this “a milestone achievement” for the entire General Dynamics littoral combat ship team that “reflects the significant contributions of many BIW mechanics, engineers and other specialists.”
The new Independence is the seventh naval ship with that name. The first Independence was commissioned in 1776, and No. 6 was decommissioned in September 1998, around the time Hayes joined the Navy.
Hayes, who says the ship is fast and fun, has sent photos of the Independence to his children, Auden, 9, and Willow, 5, who live in Hampden, and his mom, Kim Hayes-Gray, who last month moved from Clifton to Daytona Beach, Fla.
“That was what drew him,” she said this week. “That and the fact it’s a prototype. He did get a chance to go in the cockpit [bridge] when they went out on trials, and he was pretty excited about that.”
Hayes-Gray said that she is proud of her son for what he has accomplished.
“It has been a good direction for him,” she said.
Hayes, who keeps in touch with his children and his mom with Skype, a Web-based video conferencing system, is scheduled to fly to Las Vegas to get married to fellow sailor Aliscia Russo on Dec. 20, then into Bangor International Airport on Dec. 23.
“I will be home for the holidays,” he said.
By Nok-Noi Ricker
BDN Staff
BANGOR, Maine — The U.S. Navy has a pretty neat new boat in the water, and a man who grew up in Clifton is one of its 40-sailor crew.
Petty Officer 1st Class Bryan Hayes is a gas turbine technician aboard the USS Independence, a 418-foot trimaran, or three-hull, warship built for speed and its ability to travel into shallow waters.
“I’m working towards taking over the ship and sailing it” someday, Hayes said this week by phone from Mobile, Ala., where the vessel was built and will be commissioned into the Navy’s fleet on Jan. 16.
The vessel has two crews, and Hayes, a 1997 Brewer High School graduate, is an engineer on the first crew. He, along with the rest of the crew members, wear three or four other hats and work alongside automated machinery within the next-generation vessel.
“It’s the Navy’s newest program, and it’s unlike anything you’ve ever seen,” Jan Bowers, a Navy spokeswoman based in California, said this week of the Independence. “She can turn on a dime … [and] Bryan is part of a revolutionary crew.”
When Hayes, 30, recently re-enlisted aboard the newfangled littoral combat ship, he was the first sailor to do so, Lt. Cmdr. Chris Servello said.
“He kind of made history,” he said.
Hayes joined the Navy in 1998, after working for Getchell Bros. of Brewer for a year after high school. He spent 8½ years working with the Navy’s hoverboat program, and said the second he saw the Independence — with its distinctive aluminum hull, massive steerable waterjets and automated systems — that he knew he wanted to be a part of the pilot program.
“It’s a new, interesting boat,” he said. “I thought, ‘It’s pretty cool-looking and I want to be involved with it.’ It has new technology and it’s a new way of thinking for the Navy.”
The trimaran hull shape allows for a wide flight deck that can accommodate a helicopter and can handle choppy seas, and the boat has interchangeable equipment, including an unmanned submarine, which can be swapped out to match up with the type of mission the vessel is on.
The Navy is planning to build a fleet of new littoral combat ships, and is trying to decide between two prototypes — the trimaran Independence built by General Dynamics Corp., parent company of Bath Iron Works, and the Freedom, a monohull built by Lockheed Martin Corp.
The Independence, dubbed the LCS2, was built by Austal USA in Mobile, Ala., and the lead contractor was BIW. The 378-foot Freedom, the LCS1, has a steel hull and looks like a conventional warship. It was built by Lockheed in Marinette, Wis.
The costs of the two ships is about double the originally estimates of $220 million because the Navy wanted them built faster and with specific requirements for technology, speed and shallow-water accessibility.
The Independence reached highway speeds — 44 knots, or 52 mph — and maintained them for four hours during its Navy acceptance trials, held with in the Gulf of Mexico during mid-November.
The November issue of BIW News called this “a milestone achievement” for the entire General Dynamics littoral combat ship team that “reflects the significant contributions of many BIW mechanics, engineers and other specialists.”
The new Independence is the seventh naval ship with that name. The first Independence was commissioned in 1776, and No. 6 was decommissioned in September 1998, around the time Hayes joined the Navy.
Hayes, who says the ship is fast and fun, has sent photos of the Independence to his children, Auden, 9, and Willow, 5, who live in Hampden, and his mom, Kim Hayes-Gray, who last month moved from Clifton to Daytona Beach, Fla.
“That was what drew him,” she said this week. “That and the fact it’s a prototype. He did get a chance to go in the cockpit [bridge] when they went out on trials, and he was pretty excited about that.”
Hayes-Gray said that she is proud of her son for what he has accomplished.
“It has been a good direction for him,” she said.
Hayes, who keeps in touch with his children and his mom with Skype, a Web-based video conferencing system, is scheduled to fly to Las Vegas to get married to fellow sailor Aliscia Russo on Dec. 20, then into Bangor International Airport on Dec. 23.
“I will be home for the holidays,” he said.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
American Dream - Is It a Joke?
How do you do it? Some day we would all love to live the American Dream, own a piece of land, a house, have a nice car, travel, take the kids on a trip to disney, get a flatscreen TV, maybe an ATV or snowsled, stay at a lodge or just buy a new video game controller. Its all a ploy - we may never get ahead.
We live in a trailer, the three of us and occasionaly a friend stays over (more food, water and power), lol.
So lets look at a few costs and see what it is going to take to make this work. Yes I will put the wife to work and create a latch key kid with no parent around to guide or direct the children. Oops now I need two vehicles
Lets Do This By Month
Food $300 easy
Clothing $50
Christmas $50
Rent $500
Heat $125 average
Electric $125
Renter Insurance $65
Car Insurance - $100
Kids lunch and school fees $50
Sports $25
Eat Out maybe a movie $100
Water-Sewer $60
Health Insurance $350
Telephone $50
Internet $30
Cell Phone $40
Savings Joke
Church 10%
Car Payment $300
Gasoline $200
Child Care $475
Travel, vacation Joke
Oh did you forget your hunting, fishing, boating, ATV, Sled registration, maybe your car registrations, permits, licenses to work, additional training, birthday gifts, medical and drug co pays....keep adding to the list.
This bare budget comes to $36,000 a year
So we work 40 hours a week, call it 80 hours with both working, that 4160 hours a year without vacation, time off, sick or layed off. In order for this to work we each have to make around $14 an hour!!! Your thinking less, but you forgot State, Federal, FICA and Medicare about 30% or your wage. I have worked at the same job for a number of years with college education and don't make this kind of money. I am being to believe we should have stayed in a camp, self educated or try communial living with family (no I guess that isn't about to happen either). So before you get that new charge card and go wild shopping think about how long it is going to take us to pay it back - I am writing this as they shop. Happy Holidyas
We live in a trailer, the three of us and occasionaly a friend stays over (more food, water and power), lol.
So lets look at a few costs and see what it is going to take to make this work. Yes I will put the wife to work and create a latch key kid with no parent around to guide or direct the children. Oops now I need two vehicles
Lets Do This By Month
Food $300 easy
Clothing $50
Christmas $50
Rent $500
Heat $125 average
Electric $125
Renter Insurance $65
Car Insurance - $100
Kids lunch and school fees $50
Sports $25
Eat Out maybe a movie $100
Water-Sewer $60
Health Insurance $350
Telephone $50
Internet $30
Cell Phone $40
Savings Joke
Church 10%
Car Payment $300
Gasoline $200
Child Care $475
Travel, vacation Joke
Oh did you forget your hunting, fishing, boating, ATV, Sled registration, maybe your car registrations, permits, licenses to work, additional training, birthday gifts, medical and drug co pays....keep adding to the list.
This bare budget comes to $36,000 a year
So we work 40 hours a week, call it 80 hours with both working, that 4160 hours a year without vacation, time off, sick or layed off. In order for this to work we each have to make around $14 an hour!!! Your thinking less, but you forgot State, Federal, FICA and Medicare about 30% or your wage. I have worked at the same job for a number of years with college education and don't make this kind of money. I am being to believe we should have stayed in a camp, self educated or try communial living with family (no I guess that isn't about to happen either). So before you get that new charge card and go wild shopping think about how long it is going to take us to pay it back - I am writing this as they shop. Happy Holidyas
Friday, December 11, 2009
Drinking and the Law
Let me start by being very clear! I have no issue with proper use of alochol and drinking, personally I enjoy JD and light beer. However I do have a problem with drinking and driving (OUI/DWI), and more concern about underage drinking. Having been hit head on a few years ago by a drunk driver going the wrong way on a one way street and the surgery our family went through - see no reason in this day and age not to be responsible and make a plan before you drink, especially if you know you are going to need a ride. I noticed youth in our community, under the age of 21, drinking and driving on what is getting to be a regular basis. I don't know, short of calling the law, what we can do for education to our youth that will hit home the point of one - don't drink underage and two don't drink and drive - period. I understand the voting age is 18, driving is age 16 and if in the military you could be stationed in country that has a lower drinking age than 21. I have heard about every education point on underage drinking and driving there is, lectures, mock accidents, fake trials, posters, family loss and a long list. The only thing that seems to have some impact is contactig the parents or the law. At times neither can be pleasent - but if the alochol comes from home or is condoned it creates a bigger problem. I am thinking is I shoot a deer at night, I get a minimum $1,000 fine, loss of firearm, vehicle and right to hunt for a while. If I get caught underage it a small fire and driving drunk get maybe $500 fine, a few hours community service work or 48 hours in jail. Maybe if we looked at increasing the penalty to say $1,000 and loss of the vehicle (seize it) folks would think twice about drinking and driving. This is a subject that many don't like to talk about and certainly not in a small town - but the issue is here and we need to think of an action plan, before we attend services for one of our youth! Any new ideas on education?
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Ice and Fishing
I realize that some are ready to fish, and warm waters can be fished from the time the ice covers the water. As a trapper and one doing the daily search for beaver and such I can tell you that the ice is not ready yet. No matter how solid the cove looks or the sheet around the dock, please don't venture yet on the ice. The water is cold, about 33 degrees. And speaking from today, when you go through and get wet, it is not fun and will be life threathing. So parents keep an eye on the kids near those backyard ponds and coves that are starting to ice over.
Snow and Plowing
By the looks of things in the last 96 hours, winter has arrived early! Rain, wind, sleet, snow and more. Some of you lost power over the weekend for about seven hours (2am to about 9am)a result of a breaker trip on Route 9. The road crew is out plowing and sanding, salting as needed. Thanks to the efforts of Penny, the DOT did some work to the most troubling road, route 180. Aside from the S turns and high hill, 180 receives very little winter sun to melt the ice. The DOT did do some triming, ditching and grading, but without major reconstruction it can still be a dangerous road system. Depending on the time of day, based on the suns movement, the ride up or down Rebel Hill can be somewhat like a roller coaster. As I mentioned there is no one solution to the road problems, short of total reconstruction. A State Trooper was interviewed on the news the other day regarding people going off the road in the winter. The trooper stated he always asks the drivers, if you had been going 15mph slower do you think you would have gone off the road - he said the answer is always no. So when traveling 180 keep your eyes open, watch for other vehicles and take it easy, especially on the S turns from Route 9 to the Spring Pond Road.
Friday, November 20, 2009
C.C.C. Concerned Citizens of Clifton
Again one of Maine's small communities, at the far edge of the county, seperated from the county seatby distance and a large native waterway is in for a struggle.
Population 743 men, women and children, 10% unemployment, rising taxes and no major employer.
A place were customers/residents don't have stocks, bonds, bars of gold, treasury notes or large stashes of cash...what they do have is their land, it is their only family investment they can afford (and some are in fear of losing that).
We enjoy a simple life, hunting, fishing, sledding and riding our ATV, coffee at the store and visiting the library, most folks want to be left alone to enjoy what they think is theirs.
Work continues on a massive overhaul of a land use ordiance that is scheduled to be presented at spring meeting 2010. An ordinance that will restrict land owner rights, change shoreland zoning and even limit where you can build. As was reported to me, a group called Concerned Citizens of Clifton is forming to defeat this measure and hope to convince the selectboard not to even place it on the warrant for spring meeting. A motion to "passover" could be in order. Why not be like other towns and use the state shoreland ordinacne is there a special reason we need to have higher standards. In fact they would like the board, which asked for a simple ordinance years ago to stop work on drafting the document and go back to page one. Maybe let the CEO who deals with issues daily suggest or draft an ordinance what he feels might be workable for his job.
The more we pick on our neighbors for stupid things just puts more fuel in the fire to stop work on this ordinance. An example of "emotional distrubed" things is a matter, as reported, heading to the planning board. It appears that a person owns a small construction business, having a dump truck and small tractor. At night this person brings the truck home from the job and parks it on his property. Some think person is running a business from their home and should have a commerical permit. My thought and others - hogwash. So everyone who brings home a company truck running a business at their home. A local guy who hires out his tractor to bush hog, he is running a business? How about the logger with the skidder in the yard - a business? Oh wait what if you plow driveways and the plow is in your yard? The list goes on and on...this is just plan nuts or spiteful, certainly not what I would call a church going way. Yet some want more ordinances! We aren't even there yet and see what is happening around town. In my view someone should just be slapped side of the head for even bringing things like the up...which again leads me to wonder why it is going to the planning board. File a complaint with the CEO, he will investigate and issue findings. If action is needed the CEO will go to the board of selectman for funding (use your tax dollars) to cause legal action. Complaints like this should not be at the planning board. Its getting to the point that maybe we need to put our signs that snoopers are not allowed. What do you think, do you think parking your company vehicle in your dooryard should require a permit and planning board approval?
Population 743 men, women and children, 10% unemployment, rising taxes and no major employer.
A place were customers/residents don't have stocks, bonds, bars of gold, treasury notes or large stashes of cash...what they do have is their land, it is their only family investment they can afford (and some are in fear of losing that).
We enjoy a simple life, hunting, fishing, sledding and riding our ATV, coffee at the store and visiting the library, most folks want to be left alone to enjoy what they think is theirs.
Work continues on a massive overhaul of a land use ordiance that is scheduled to be presented at spring meeting 2010. An ordinance that will restrict land owner rights, change shoreland zoning and even limit where you can build. As was reported to me, a group called Concerned Citizens of Clifton is forming to defeat this measure and hope to convince the selectboard not to even place it on the warrant for spring meeting. A motion to "passover" could be in order. Why not be like other towns and use the state shoreland ordinacne is there a special reason we need to have higher standards. In fact they would like the board, which asked for a simple ordinance years ago to stop work on drafting the document and go back to page one. Maybe let the CEO who deals with issues daily suggest or draft an ordinance what he feels might be workable for his job.
The more we pick on our neighbors for stupid things just puts more fuel in the fire to stop work on this ordinance. An example of "emotional distrubed" things is a matter, as reported, heading to the planning board. It appears that a person owns a small construction business, having a dump truck and small tractor. At night this person brings the truck home from the job and parks it on his property. Some think person is running a business from their home and should have a commerical permit. My thought and others - hogwash. So everyone who brings home a company truck running a business at their home. A local guy who hires out his tractor to bush hog, he is running a business? How about the logger with the skidder in the yard - a business? Oh wait what if you plow driveways and the plow is in your yard? The list goes on and on...this is just plan nuts or spiteful, certainly not what I would call a church going way. Yet some want more ordinances! We aren't even there yet and see what is happening around town. In my view someone should just be slapped side of the head for even bringing things like the up...which again leads me to wonder why it is going to the planning board. File a complaint with the CEO, he will investigate and issue findings. If action is needed the CEO will go to the board of selectman for funding (use your tax dollars) to cause legal action. Complaints like this should not be at the planning board. Its getting to the point that maybe we need to put our signs that snoopers are not allowed. What do you think, do you think parking your company vehicle in your dooryard should require a permit and planning board approval?
Enforcement Thoughts
The town and board of selectman employ a CEO (Code Enforcement Officer), who also reviews plumbing and electrical. The CEO reports to the and works with the planning board. The CEO is charged with certain duties by the board, some of which involve issuing permits and enforcement of ordinances.
There seems to a lot of customers concerned with other customers in town and what neighbords are doing on their property. In looking over the minutes it suggests that concerns or complaints are being reviewed by the planning board, not the CEO and select board.
If a customer feels the need to question what another customer or neighbor is doing, permit concerns or what they feel should not be doing. The complaint should be clearly directed to the CEO not the planning board. The CEO will investigate and report the findings to the selectboard and reporting customer. The selectboard makes final decisions on filing of lawsuits and enforcement costs. Once the planning board has issued the permit - follow up and concerns rest with the CEO and selectboard. That the way the law was created and the way it should be - providing checks and balances. Having the planning board investigating complaints is their action, but that of the CEO, thus removing bias and conficts. There must not be much to do if customers are worried about other customers. The CEO is well qualified, training and educated, providing a great service for the dollars provided. After your permit is issued or if someone complains who do you expect to see knocking at your talking or giving you a phone call to explain the rules?
There seems to a lot of customers concerned with other customers in town and what neighbords are doing on their property. In looking over the minutes it suggests that concerns or complaints are being reviewed by the planning board, not the CEO and select board.
If a customer feels the need to question what another customer or neighbor is doing, permit concerns or what they feel should not be doing. The complaint should be clearly directed to the CEO not the planning board. The CEO will investigate and report the findings to the selectboard and reporting customer. The selectboard makes final decisions on filing of lawsuits and enforcement costs. Once the planning board has issued the permit - follow up and concerns rest with the CEO and selectboard. That the way the law was created and the way it should be - providing checks and balances. Having the planning board investigating complaints is their action, but that of the CEO, thus removing bias and conficts. There must not be much to do if customers are worried about other customers. The CEO is well qualified, training and educated, providing a great service for the dollars provided. After your permit is issued or if someone complains who do you expect to see knocking at your talking or giving you a phone call to explain the rules?
Do We Need Planning Board?
Maine law does not require a Planning Board. If a town elects not to have a planning board the board of selectman become the permit reviewers.
Population of 743 men, women and children, with 10% unemployment, over $5,000 in planning board expenses, less than 20 new construction permits issued for the year.
Is there any reason that the CEO can not review all applications, and issue permits, expect those requiring review (those would go before the board of selectman).
A reasonable person would entertain that based on costs, town values and the number of permits issued that abolishing the planning board and having the select baord review the work of the CEO would be a smart move. It also would provide the select board with direct oversight with CEO and board, stream line the process and provide direct contact. Do you think this would make things simplified in government for you the customer?
Population of 743 men, women and children, with 10% unemployment, over $5,000 in planning board expenses, less than 20 new construction permits issued for the year.
Is there any reason that the CEO can not review all applications, and issue permits, expect those requiring review (those would go before the board of selectman).
A reasonable person would entertain that based on costs, town values and the number of permits issued that abolishing the planning board and having the select baord review the work of the CEO would be a smart move. It also would provide the select board with direct oversight with CEO and board, stream line the process and provide direct contact. Do you think this would make things simplified in government for you the customer?
Do Whats Right!
Abatement of taxes is a special issue when it comes to town's and cities across Maine. There are also very specfic statutes outlining how and when abatements can be given by the selectboard. Recently requests were made for abatement. In reviewing the matter it was found that the assessor agent and town select board as the assessors had made some serious mistakes in evaluation of a customers property. The customer requested an abatement. Mistakes were made, for whatever reason, and when it comes to over charging a tax payer by thousands there is zero room for mistakes in a small town. The select board wanted to grant a refund or abatement to the customer. It now appears that under Maine law we can not provide such abatement because the customer who is untrained, not a professional assessor or appraiser did not file a complaint within a proper time period of 180 days of being notified. Although the customer did call (verabal) and ask staff about the tax bill, they never filed a written appeal, nor were they told they could file for abatement. How would the average person know there rights? I would suggest that on the tax bill a statement be included telling the customer they have rights - if they disagree with the assessment or evalulation they need to file a request for abatemetn within 180 days of receiving the tax notice. So there are multiple errors in the tax evaluation and over a thousand dollars owed for at least a three year period. Request for refund denied - why because the law court says assessor make mistakes because of being overworked and balancing such paperwork is inherent to mistakes. Incompentance or igornance I was always told was not an excuse. Try telling a judge you didn't know the law, you forgot or were asleep at the wheel. This is just not right, we as the town made a mistake and we should fix and refund the overcharge to our customer, you the tax payer. What do you think, if you found out you were overcharged for a product, would you want a refund?
Thursday, November 19, 2009
November Selectman Highlights
November 18, 2009 Selectmen Meeting Highlights
Planning board report (Paula) and discussion on wind farm coming to Planning Board. Should be do a new ordinance, incorp in the LUO, do a moratorium or get more information – get more information. Asked CEO for his thoughts and he suggested a standalone ordinance as reported in the planning board minutes
CEO Report – discussion on fencing and Gates hearing. It appears that subject owns a construction business and parks his dump truck and small tractor in his yard. Is this a business? Also building permit to Frank on Mill Lane up for discussion as it has expired. Planning board to consider these things.
ACO discussion on Mr. Walsh resigning, Pelkey is interested; she is doing three or four other neighboring towns. Wait until Mr. Walsh resigns.
Question about fire budget from Eddington, no information yet.
Long discussion on SAD63 its expenses, operations, land deals and joint eeting with Eddington Select board next week. Rusty Gagnon provided information to the board – good discussion. Also the 2009 Maine Piglet Book on government waste in Maine
Discussion on selectman and school board positions, papers will be out in December 20back by January 29th with 25 registered voters of the town required to sign.
Discussions on abatements – while the town overtaxed and make mistake we cannot under law provide a refund.
Legal reports that we cannot waive interest to Carle monies owed.
Ed reported on Chick Hill Road condition.
Paula asked where the funds from the Bradley lease/rent go and if the voters of the leglistiative body had approved the board to enter into this agreement. Will be sent out for review.
Will close eve of Thanksgiving and Christmas at 2pm.
Plowing and sanding contract signed. $38,964 for year 09-10
Discussion on properties to be foreclosed on 12/10/09 for failure to pay taxes in 2007. There are fifteen on the list provided.
November 16, 2009 Selectman Meeting Highlights
This was a budget meeting to start work on the 2009-2010 budget and material for spring 2010 meeting. See budget report separate.
October 21, 2009 Selectman Meeting Highlights
• Public Hearing on General Assistance – update of policy
• Mowing contract awarded for $4,600 per year, 3 year contract
• Phyllis Carle asked the selectman to waive the interest on the amount owed the town from the legal proceedings and clean up. Voted to waive interest as long as payments were being made.
• N. Hatch reported on the Route 180 cemetery, new addition and layout. $2,040 to have survey and pins for each plot installed.
• Report on the building permit issue at Parks Pond, permit had been issued.
• Discussion of various abatements from mistakes made by assessor. However it appears that under Maine law we cannot refund or abate the mistake.
• Report on Hopkins Pond road signs missing (Route 180).
• Approved Snowmobile Club using the meeting room for the winter.
• Approved girl scouts to have a bake sale during Election Day.
• Discussion on creating and ¼ newsletter that would pay for itself through ads.
• Grading of roads completed, suggested that we may want to consider doing it three times a year.
• Sand bid awarded was $580 more than what was budgeted.
• Special thanks to Jay Perry for flag work on poles.
• Discussion on trash issues. Trash must be contained so no animals or birds or elements can spread contents on ground. No bags over 40 pounds. Trash not to be in road way or interfere with plowing.
• ACO and CEO report
• Discussion on purchasing water and water cooler for town office since the water from the well is not ok to drink. Approved to come from building account.
Planning board report (Paula) and discussion on wind farm coming to Planning Board. Should be do a new ordinance, incorp in the LUO, do a moratorium or get more information – get more information. Asked CEO for his thoughts and he suggested a standalone ordinance as reported in the planning board minutes
CEO Report – discussion on fencing and Gates hearing. It appears that subject owns a construction business and parks his dump truck and small tractor in his yard. Is this a business? Also building permit to Frank on Mill Lane up for discussion as it has expired. Planning board to consider these things.
ACO discussion on Mr. Walsh resigning, Pelkey is interested; she is doing three or four other neighboring towns. Wait until Mr. Walsh resigns.
Question about fire budget from Eddington, no information yet.
Long discussion on SAD63 its expenses, operations, land deals and joint eeting with Eddington Select board next week. Rusty Gagnon provided information to the board – good discussion. Also the 2009 Maine Piglet Book on government waste in Maine
Discussion on selectman and school board positions, papers will be out in December 20back by January 29th with 25 registered voters of the town required to sign.
Discussions on abatements – while the town overtaxed and make mistake we cannot under law provide a refund.
Legal reports that we cannot waive interest to Carle monies owed.
Ed reported on Chick Hill Road condition.
Paula asked where the funds from the Bradley lease/rent go and if the voters of the leglistiative body had approved the board to enter into this agreement. Will be sent out for review.
Will close eve of Thanksgiving and Christmas at 2pm.
Plowing and sanding contract signed. $38,964 for year 09-10
Discussion on properties to be foreclosed on 12/10/09 for failure to pay taxes in 2007. There are fifteen on the list provided.
November 16, 2009 Selectman Meeting Highlights
This was a budget meeting to start work on the 2009-2010 budget and material for spring 2010 meeting. See budget report separate.
October 21, 2009 Selectman Meeting Highlights
• Public Hearing on General Assistance – update of policy
• Mowing contract awarded for $4,600 per year, 3 year contract
• Phyllis Carle asked the selectman to waive the interest on the amount owed the town from the legal proceedings and clean up. Voted to waive interest as long as payments were being made.
• N. Hatch reported on the Route 180 cemetery, new addition and layout. $2,040 to have survey and pins for each plot installed.
• Report on the building permit issue at Parks Pond, permit had been issued.
• Discussion of various abatements from mistakes made by assessor. However it appears that under Maine law we cannot refund or abate the mistake.
• Report on Hopkins Pond road signs missing (Route 180).
• Approved Snowmobile Club using the meeting room for the winter.
• Approved girl scouts to have a bake sale during Election Day.
• Discussion on creating and ¼ newsletter that would pay for itself through ads.
• Grading of roads completed, suggested that we may want to consider doing it three times a year.
• Sand bid awarded was $580 more than what was budgeted.
• Special thanks to Jay Perry for flag work on poles.
• Discussion on trash issues. Trash must be contained so no animals or birds or elements can spread contents on ground. No bags over 40 pounds. Trash not to be in road way or interfere with plowing.
• ACO and CEO report
• Discussion on purchasing water and water cooler for town office since the water from the well is not ok to drink. Approved to come from building account.
Where Have I Been County Budget
Wow Rusty commented to me at last nights selectman meeting that I had not been posting much - or anything in the last month. So long in fact I to look up my password for this blog. For that I am sorry.
My Tic Off of the day is the Increase in County Tax. The county passes its budget which is then billed to each town based on evaulation. There is no say or ability to reject - the town must pay the tax. There was a serious increase to our little town last year - we are almost paying $70,000 a year. Everyone is cutting, state, local, businesses. There are no raises being given by employers, we are lucky to have a job. So how can the three commissioners knowing this vote for another tax increase. The mill rate was 1.071 and is now scheduled to be 1.118. A few thoughts, Rusty with your back ground you might like this. Maine law enforcement uses State Police, Game Wardens, local police and county sheriff. With the way Maine is layout there is one to many layers of law enforcement and the easist to reduce is county sheriff patrol, letting the state police provide the coverage. Heck with the budget the way it is, the county already does sharing and has periods without coverage. This will strike a nerve and I am sure anyone with law enforcement background - especially at the county level will defend the county patrol, so I expect that. But folks times are hard and we need to really look deep into the budget. Second why not let the towns from which folks are arrested pay for the jail? if 51% of the arrests are from Bangor, let Bangor pay 51% of the jail budget. We all knew when county dispatch came on line that local control was going to be lost, but we never expected continuous budget increases
My Tic Off of the day is the Increase in County Tax. The county passes its budget which is then billed to each town based on evaulation. There is no say or ability to reject - the town must pay the tax. There was a serious increase to our little town last year - we are almost paying $70,000 a year. Everyone is cutting, state, local, businesses. There are no raises being given by employers, we are lucky to have a job. So how can the three commissioners knowing this vote for another tax increase. The mill rate was 1.071 and is now scheduled to be 1.118. A few thoughts, Rusty with your back ground you might like this. Maine law enforcement uses State Police, Game Wardens, local police and county sheriff. With the way Maine is layout there is one to many layers of law enforcement and the easist to reduce is county sheriff patrol, letting the state police provide the coverage. Heck with the budget the way it is, the county already does sharing and has periods without coverage. This will strike a nerve and I am sure anyone with law enforcement background - especially at the county level will defend the county patrol, so I expect that. But folks times are hard and we need to really look deep into the budget. Second why not let the towns from which folks are arrested pay for the jail? if 51% of the arrests are from Bangor, let Bangor pay 51% of the jail budget. We all knew when county dispatch came on line that local control was going to be lost, but we never expected continuous budget increases
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Yes to TABOR
Vote for TABOR II and lets take back control and put it in the hands of the citizens where it belongs. We as landowners have rights and those rights are afforded to us as citizens and by those who fought for freedom. It is just unamerican to be attempting to control anothers property and borders on being a communist.
From BDN 10-17-09
SANGERVILLE, Maine — The Sangerville Planning Board has found the state’s new guidelines for municipal shoreland zoning ordinances not to its liking.
The board, which took its concerns about the new regulations to selectmen Tuesday, was advised to poll officials in surrounding towns to gauge the support or nonsupport of the new guidelines. It also was suggested that the planning board relay its concerns to local legislators and senators.
The legal deadline for towns to have updated their shoreland zoning ordinances was July 1, 2009, according to Stephanie MacLagan, the Department of Environmental Protection’s shoreland zoning coordinator. If a town has not adopted its own ordinance, a state ordinance will be imposed, she said Friday.
The DEP is working toward the state-imposed ordinance, but it will take time before it is adopted because of the mapping requirements, she noted. In the interim, towns can continue to work on their documents, she said. MacLagan said even if the state imposes an ordinance, towns later could adopt their own ordinance and maps if the information provided is acceptable to the DEP.
The Sangerville Planning Board recommended to selectmen this week that residents vote on the new guidelines at the annual town meeting.
Individually, the planning board members had a variety of concerns, including the fact that the Resource Protection District was enlarged, yet the town had no way to identify the affected areas without a map of the General Development and Timber Harvesting districts, according to planning board Chairman Gerald Peters. He said the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife had provided the town with a map of wildlife protection areas. In addition, the board believes the changes make it more restrictive for landowners, who won’t enjoy the benefits they once had, he said Friday.
Planning board member Irving McNaughton said the DEP has changed the rules six times since 1990. “I expect the state will continue to impose changes and it’s time for the town to say, ‘No, enough is enough,’” McNaughton said Friday.
“They are just too restrictive,” he said of the changes. He added that the town couldn’t afford the additional administrative costs.
Peters, who expects the DEP will impose the new changes on the town regardless of the board’s actions, predicted that it would cost three times as much to enforce the changes. He said the code enforcement officer receives only $3,000 for the job and this would triple his work.
MacLagan said she did not feel the new amendments would impose an additional financial burden on communities. She said the Sangerville board has not been “very communicative” with her. Of the 453 Maine communities, only 50, including Sangerville, are “missing in action,” she said. That means they haven’t contacted the DEP about the status of the review process, she said.
From BDN 10-17-09
SANGERVILLE, Maine — The Sangerville Planning Board has found the state’s new guidelines for municipal shoreland zoning ordinances not to its liking.
The board, which took its concerns about the new regulations to selectmen Tuesday, was advised to poll officials in surrounding towns to gauge the support or nonsupport of the new guidelines. It also was suggested that the planning board relay its concerns to local legislators and senators.
The legal deadline for towns to have updated their shoreland zoning ordinances was July 1, 2009, according to Stephanie MacLagan, the Department of Environmental Protection’s shoreland zoning coordinator. If a town has not adopted its own ordinance, a state ordinance will be imposed, she said Friday.
The DEP is working toward the state-imposed ordinance, but it will take time before it is adopted because of the mapping requirements, she noted. In the interim, towns can continue to work on their documents, she said. MacLagan said even if the state imposes an ordinance, towns later could adopt their own ordinance and maps if the information provided is acceptable to the DEP.
The Sangerville Planning Board recommended to selectmen this week that residents vote on the new guidelines at the annual town meeting.
Individually, the planning board members had a variety of concerns, including the fact that the Resource Protection District was enlarged, yet the town had no way to identify the affected areas without a map of the General Development and Timber Harvesting districts, according to planning board Chairman Gerald Peters. He said the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife had provided the town with a map of wildlife protection areas. In addition, the board believes the changes make it more restrictive for landowners, who won’t enjoy the benefits they once had, he said Friday.
Planning board member Irving McNaughton said the DEP has changed the rules six times since 1990. “I expect the state will continue to impose changes and it’s time for the town to say, ‘No, enough is enough,’” McNaughton said Friday.
“They are just too restrictive,” he said of the changes. He added that the town couldn’t afford the additional administrative costs.
Peters, who expects the DEP will impose the new changes on the town regardless of the board’s actions, predicted that it would cost three times as much to enforce the changes. He said the code enforcement officer receives only $3,000 for the job and this would triple his work.
MacLagan said she did not feel the new amendments would impose an additional financial burden on communities. She said the Sangerville board has not been “very communicative” with her. Of the 453 Maine communities, only 50, including Sangerville, are “missing in action,” she said. That means they haven’t contacted the DEP about the status of the review process, she said.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Taxes and Election Year
Vehicle Excise tax is a hot issue, as are most tax issues. But come November the voter will have a chance to decide on a couple of tax measures. First let me state that I support an increase in sales tax and flat federal tax, maybe even a federal sales tax. But with that do away with the current income tax system. This way EVERYONE pays and the higher bracket purchasing high end items will pay more. But back to Vehicle Excise tax - I beleive that any rate of any fee, license, charge or tax should be directly related to the purpose for which it was collected - not just another way to collect or raise money for government. With that said, excise tax is not 100% used for local road repair - with that in mind and the fact that many folks don't purchase new because of the high excise tax - I vote to reduce the amount charged by town's. I know that the town's have a great lobbying group, lawyers and association called Maine Municpal which is to protect the town's interest. They are pulling out all the stops to insure that excise tax and income for town's is protected this fall. Some say this will raise property taxes, that will happen only if the voters allow it to happen. Instead we should look at mergering offices, reducing overhead and cutting costs - in case you haven't heard things are tough out there! Next on the voter list is TABOR II, again MMA is against this. TABOR II limits how much state/local can raise property taxes in a given year, much like LD 1 was intended to do a few years ago. MMA says that voting in the excise reduction and limiting how much property taxes can go up will cripple local towns. I am not buying that story one bit. Let make sure we have our priorities correct, roads maintained, plowed, trash picked up and ambulance service. The rest is gravy on potatoes. I would love to have talk about school budgets, but Rusty has the view of that which I agree with. Maybe to save SAD funds, Russel could double as superindent, the Eddington office staff could balance the books and cut checks...hmmm, this could work.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Ethics
Ethics - This is very hard to define and many think they have good ethics. Recently I was shopping at a local store when the man in front of us left over $60 on the counter. No one noticed, I could have put that money in my pocket, instead I had my son run out and stop the man and I gave him his money. I think he was in a state of shock, but thanked us. After serving 25 years in government, reviewing ethics policies and attending various conferences, I have come to a simple rule on ethics. Ethics are what we do when no one else is watching. Also think about your actions, would you mind having your actions or what you are doing published on the front page of the next day paper or on the local news. Government of all kinds worry about what the headline will say or if the information will get out. If this is the case there is most likely an ethics issue at the heart of the matter. Remember violations of ethics are not always illegal, they are just doing wrong instead of what is right.
Prayer In School
With the discussion of morales, ethics and values we need to teach our children it is OK to have prayer in SAD 63. There's not a single thing preventing individuals or groups of any people (students or adults) voluntarily and privately offering prayers (as long as it does not disrupt classes or scheduled events). There is no law prohibiting voluntary "private" prayer by individuals. In fact, many schools have groups of students who gather each morning before school for "prayer circles." Brings to mind the church song, "We gather together to ask the Lord's Blessings..." What a great way for child to start the day, bless their meals or others gathered around them. Please support having your child offer prayers circles with friends at lunch or recess. Let bring love and kindness and respect to all.
National Politics at School
Enough is enough, now the BOSS wants to talk politics with all kids across America on values and morales. I am sure health care will creep into the talk some how. These are matters that should remain with the family. I am joining the group the says no and keep your kid home on Tuesday.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Cell Phones In School
SAD or Holbrook has a policy on the NO use of cell phones by students. In general I agree with this. However children should be allowed before school, at lunch and at end of day to turn phones on to check for messages. This is a great tool for parents to give kids messages on work, chores, busing, pickups and so much more. But if the kid gets caught doing this by the phone police, they take the phone, notes home and more. But here is the kicker....the teachers use phones in class. On a regular basis their phones ring and THEY answer them and talk on them, excusing themselves for a moment or talking in class. A student can not have coffee, soda or ice tea to drink at school. Yet those same drinks are taken into the class room by the teachers and drank in front of the class. There should be no double standards. In fact the teachers should be setting the standards, not do as I say, not as I do! Isn't that what a teachers lounge is for?
Clifton Bus Run
Well another school year has started and so do the dymanics with SAD63. First there are no cameras on board the buses, they were taken out or not installed. There is no record or way to check on who is being rough, rude or physical. Second it appears there has been a major change to the bus run in Clifton. All buses start their runs from 7:20-7:30, but not in Clifton, we are starting at 7:00 am now, thats right K-8ride a bus for an hour an half, just in the morning. I attempted to resolve the issue with the person in charge of transportation, without any success. The answer was that we need to make right hand turns for safety. I pointed out to him this was not the case with all runs! He said the afternoon is worst with more traffic, yet the afternoon run, goes by road, left, right, left or whatever the driver feels like! So much for those theories. SAD sent home a letter asking parents to schedule any three times a day meds around school hours. That is kind of hard when the bus picks up at 7AM and doesn't return until 4PM. So lets see, 2 1/2 hours on bus, hour for lunch and recess, thats 3 1/2 hours a day. That is more than what is provided for education. That is more than home school kids receive, which by the way have higher stats and standings in the State of Maine. In fact the bus arrives at school without enough time for the kids to sit and eat breakfast, the most important meal of the day. The time has come to for the supervisor to review the matter and find a solution that works for kids, parents and meals. I would also point out that the bus schedule provide on the new SAD website last week and supplied to neighbors was wrong, they changed it over the weekend two days before school. The schedule was not published in the paper or mailed to students. It was told to me it was way to expensive to mail....haha last week the school sent every child their schedule, a packet, handbooks, forms and so much more - the right doesn't talk with the left. This blog note was modified on 9-3-09 with corrections
NO TO HOLDEN LAND FROM SAD 63
The following is taken from Eddington News Blog, created by Rusty and could not express the views of the Citizens of Clifton any better. There is no way in green bay the Town of Holden is entitled to the land next to Holden School. That was only a consideration if and I SAY IF the RSU had pasted and that was to protect the lands from being sold or lost to another agency. There is a meeting on Sept 28 at 6:30 pm in the Holden school to discuss the matter. Please contact your select members and a school board member and voice NO to this idea.
Friday, August 28, 2009
THE ISSUE IS LAND - NOT THE OLD RSU PROPOSAL
It has taken me these past few days to formalize my thoughts (with the help of friends) re: the issue of the Town of Holden's request for the SAD63 School Board to transfer certain parcels of land currently a part of the Holden Elementary School to the Town of Holden.
This issue has been going on for several months. It almost culminated at this past Monday night's School Board meeting and Holden Councilman Harvey certainly expected it would.
However, while the Town of Holden had reportedly sent its formal and legally prepared proposal to School Board Chairman Varnum a month ago, none of the Board members received it until the Tuesday prior to the Board meeting. And neither the Eddington nor Clifton Boards of Selectpersons had received it. As a result of that delay, neither the School Board nor Eddington nor Clifton had had the opportunity to have their legal counsels review the proposal nor consider the opinions of their constituencies.
Not only are those steps important, they are legally required. Without these steps, the towns of Eddington and Clifton could file suit against the School Board. Regardless of an opinion expressed by Interim Superintendent Hart at the Monday meeting (that Board members are elected to make such decisions), there are legal precedents that would give Eddington and Clifton grounds to file legal action (a.k.a. a law suit) against the School Board should the it vote away the property in question without first consulting with the Boards of Selectpersons of Eddington and Clifton. And "consulting does not mean listing "Holden Town Deed" on the Board's Agenda, regardless of comments by Board Member Ellis (rep from Holden). And that was how the issue listed, with no indication that there was any intent of a final vote planned - not to mention that the formal documents had not been sent to the Selectpersons of Eddington or Clifton.
So, let's look at the Town of Holden's Proposal and then ask a few questions.
The proposal has been set forth in the form of a Release Deed, which states as follows:
"SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT #63, located at Holden, Penobscot County, Maine, for consideration paid, released to the INHABITANTS OF THE TOWN OF HOLDEN, a municipality located in Holden, Penobscot County, Maine, all of the District's right, title or interest in and to the land and any improvements thereon located in Holden, Penobscot County, Maine, described as follows:
A certain lot or parcel of land with buildings wnd improvements thereon situated on the northerly side of Main Road (a.k.a. U.S. Route IA) in the Town of Holden, County of Penobscot, State of Maine and being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the northerly sideline of said Main Road, which point is further described as being the southeasterly corner of land now of the Inhabits (sic) the Town of Holden as described in a deed recorded at the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds in Volume 2595, Page 20;
Thence N 20 degrees 53' 44" E by and along the easterly line of land of the Inhabitants of the Town of Holden as described in Volume 2595, Page 20, a distance of 1132.34 feet to a point on the southerly line of land now or formerly of Granville Jennings as described in a deed recorded as the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds in volumn 3839, Page 254;
Thence S 71 degrees 47' 08" E by and along the southerly line of land of said Granville Jennings, a distance of 801.86 feet to an iron rod found at the northeasterly corner of land of School Administrative District #63 as described in a deed from the Maine School Building Authority to School Administrative District #63, which deed is recorded at the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds in Volume 2529, Page 115, said point is further described as being on the northwesterly line of land now or formerly of Philip Robinson as described in a deed recorded at the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds in Volume 3518, Page 193;
Thence S 31 degrees 08' 46" W by and along the northwesterly line of land of said Philip Robinson, a distance of 507.14 feet to a point on said line;
Thence N 61 degrees 09' 31" W, a distance of 262.78 feet to a #6 rebar with an aluminum cap stamped "PLS 1030" set'
Thence continuing on the same course N 61 degrees 09' 31" W, a distance of 174.15 feet to a #6 rebar with an aluminum cap stamped "PLS 1030" set;
Thence S 32 degrees 28' 29" W, a distance of 202.92 feet to a #6 rebar with an aluminum cap stamped "PLS 1030" set;
Thence S 10 degrees 57' 54" E, a distance of 125.34 feet to a #6 rebar with an aluminum cap stamped "PLS 1030" set;
Thence S 25 degrees 47' 19" W, a distance of 219.71 feet to a #6 rebar with an aluminum cap stamped "PLS 1030" set near the left field corner of the ballfield;
Thence S 38 degrees 51' 28" W, a distance of 224.04 feet to a point on the northerly sideline of said Main Road;
Thence running in a mortherly direction by and along the northerly sideline of said Main Road following a 2503.72 foot radius curve to the left, an arc distance of 215.75 feet to the point of beginning.
EXCEPTING AND RESERVING to the Grantor, its successors and assigns, an easement to maintain, repair, replace and use the existing parking area encroaching onto the above described parcel as depicted on a survey plan dated Octobet 23, 2008 prepared by Plisga & Day, Land Surveyors, being further identified as Project 90228.
THis conveyance is made expressly subject to the right of the Grantor to requwst reconveyances to it of portions of the above described portions of the above descrived parcel, or easements thereon, upon 4evidencing a need for use of such portions or easements for school purpowes, including but not limited to the replacement or expansion of the subsurface wastewater disposal system serving Grantor's remaining land or the construction of additional educational facilities. Provided, however that the right reserved to Grantor shall not apply to any portion of the conveyed property, which at the time of any such request, is being used by the Grantee for municipal purposes (emphasis added by this writer) or for other purposes for which the consent of the Grantor has been obtained or to any other portion as may have been conveyed by the Grantee with the consent of the Grantor.
The above described lot or parcel of land contains 12.14 acres, more or less, and is a portion of the premises desribed in a deed from the Maine School Building Authority to School Administrate Diwtrict #63, dated February 24, 1975 and recorded at the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds in Volume 2529 , Page 115 and a portion of the premises described in a deed from Richard C. Cook to School Administrative District #63, dated August 15, 1988 and recorded at the Penobscot COunty Registry of Deeds in Volume 4290, Page 50.
Bearings referenced herein are oriented to True North and are based on a survey dated October 23, 2008 by PLISGA & DAY, Land SUrbeyors, and said survey is further identified as Project No. 90228.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, School Administrative District #63 has caused this instrument to be executed and delivered by ______, its Superintendent, this ___ day of _____. 2009.
And there follows Notoary Public Signature veification...
ATTACHED TO THE RELEASE DEED IS THE FOLLOWING - JOINT USE AGREEMENT - :
This Agreement is entered into by and between MAINE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT #63 ("District") and the TOWN OF HOLDEN ("Town") as of the ___ day of ________, 2009.
RECITALS
A. Town conveyed a parcel of land to the Maine School Building Authority ("Authority") by deed dated May 29, 1954, recorded in the Penboscot County Registry of Deeds in Book 1444, age 248.
B. The Authority conveyed the same parcel of land to the District by deed dated February 24, 1975, recorded in the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds in Book 2529, Page 115.
C. District conveyed a portion of the parcel to Town by deed dated October 9, 1975, recorded in the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds in Book 2595, Page 20.
D. District released its remaining interest in the parcel conveyed to Town by deed dated June 23, 2008, recorded in the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds in Book 11457, Page 229.
E. District acquired an additional parcel of land from Richard C. Cook by deed dated August 15, 1988, recorded in the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds in Book 4290, Page 50.
F. District has agreed to convey 12.14 acres of its property to Town, as shown on a survey dated October 23, 2008, prepared by Plisga & Day, Landy Surveyors, a reduced copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A (hereinafter the "Property").
G. District has traditionally used the ball field and appurtenances thereto located on the Property, as shown on the survey plan, for school purposes, and the parties desire to enter into this Agreement to allow the continuation of that use.
H. Town has traditionally used said ball fields and appurtenances thereto as part of its recreational programs.
I. Town has also agreed to allow the District to use the Town's ajacent property for overflow parking for school events.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, the parties hereby agree as follows:
1. Town shall continue to provide overall maintenance and repair of the ball field and the associated improvements (including the dugouts and chain-link fencing).
2. District shall be permitted to provide supplemental maintenanmce and repair of the ball field and associated improvements.
3. District shall have priority for the use of the ball field and associated improvements during the school year. District, through the Principal of Holden School (or designee) shall consult with Town's Manager (or designee) concerning the scheduling of any school usage of that facility during the school year, and the coordination of any Town usage of the same during the school year.
4. During school summer vacation, Town shall have the priority for the use of the ball field and associated improvements for its recreational programs. Town, through its Town Manager (or designee), shall consult with Holden School's Principal (or designee) concerning the scheduling of Town usage of that facility during the school summer vacation, and the coordination of and school usage of that facility during school vacation.
5. Both District and Town shall retain any immunities from liabilities available to them under Maine law, or any other source.
6. Any proposals relating to major repair or replacement of the existing recreational facilities on the Property, or the development of new recreational facilities on the Property, shall be presented by the proposing party to the other party for review. If the proposed improvements are to be jointly used by the parties, the parties shall negotiate in good faith to develop an agreement on the funding and maintenance of such improvements, and any necessary or appropriate amendments to this Agreement. If the Town proposes the improvements and the District does not elect to utilize the same for school purposes, Town shall be responsible for the payment for, and the maintenance of, the improvements. If District proposes the improvements and Town approves them, but does not elect to utilize the same ofr municipal purposes, District shall be responsible for the payment for, and the maintenance of, the improvements.
7. District shall have the right to use any parking areas onthe Parperty, or on ajacent property owned by the TOwn, for overflow parking for any school events. The Principal (or designee) and the Town Manager (or Designee) shall consult on the Scheduling of major events by either party in an attempt to avoid conflicting demands for parking.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on their behalf, in duplicate counterparts, as of the date first above written.
TOWN OF HOLDEN
Signatures from Holden Town Manager and MSAD#63 Superintendent (with witnesses)
So NOW MY QUESTIONS AND THOUGHTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
Let's be clear about what is currently occupying the Property Holden wants conveyed from SAD63 to the Town of Holden. Aside from degrees and measurements, What are we really talking about? (According to Councilman Harvey, in his mostly one-way conversation with me in the parking lot outside the Holbrook School, the Veterans Memorial, the Nature Walk trails, the supplementary parking lot [that SAD63 just paved at the mandate of the Town of Holden at a Taxpayer cost of $40,000], and the ball field are all on the 12.14 acres of Property to be conveyed if this proposal is approved.)
1. How did this Property come to be part of SAD63 in the first place? Councilman Harvey told me that the Property in question originally belonged to Holden. There is reference to parcels of the Property originally belonging to Granville Jennings and Philip Robinson in the Release Deed.
If taxpayers ("Taxpayers") from the towns of Eddington, Clifton and Holden had to compensate either individuals or the Town of Holden for the Property to become part of SAD63, then some form of compensation to the Taxpayers should be made in exchange for releasing the property to the Town of Holden, even if some form of shared usage results.
2. There is nothing in the Release Deed or Recitals that guarantees the Property will be held by the Town of Holden for Public Access, meaning that it will not be sold to a third party or used for exclusive town business purposes. While there were verbal assurances by individuals at the School Board meetings, without the guarantee in writing, there is no legal binding. Additionally, note the caveat the Town of Holden has included in the "Excepting and Reserving" section of the Release Deed (highlighted in red by this writer). What safeguard is there for Taxpayers that the Town of Holden will not convert any portion for a "municipal purpose" such as an additional municipal building.
3. The Veterans Memorial is included in the Property to be conveyed to the Town of Holden. The Memorial was created through fund-raising efforts by the eighth-grade students at Holbrook Middle School. While there may be some discussion as to the fiscal responsibility for flag replacement at the Memorial, the Memorial was clearly the result of SAD63 students. Should the ground on which the Memorial stands be separated from SAD63 property?
4. The Nature Walk trails are part of the property to be conveyed to the Town of Holden. Councilman Harvey told me the trails are maintained by Holden volunteers. He also stated that the trails were created by financial grants. (My impression was he intended to infer the trails were not developed by SAD63 Taxpayers.) If the grant applications suggested or flatly stated the trails would benefit the education of SAD63 students, the grantors may have elected to fund the Nature Walk trails because of the school district association and because the trails were on the property of the Holden Elementary School.
5. For all of the Taxpayers funding (for maintenance, improvements, taxes, insurances, etc.) since the Property became part of SAD63, some form of compensation to the Taxpayers should be issued by the Town of Holden for the Release Deed proportionate to any agreement of joint use and authorization of control.
6. FINALLY, in no way does the argument of the former RSU discussion apply to this issue. The OLD RSU proposal dealt with the potential consolidation with Brewer and an RSU Board that would have had a significant representation from the community. It was for that reason many issues regarding land associated with the Eddington, Holbrook and Holden schools were discussed. The OLD RSU proposal was soundly defeated and is dead. DEAD. Off the table. Even though there have been individuals who have tried to get the School Board Chairman to appoint a NEW RSU Committee to get started, nothing has been done. The only things that have been done is TALK. The current Interim Superintendent firmly believes SAD63 will consolidate with someone in the coming year. There is "TALK" that SAD63 may enter consolidation discussion with Dedham or Orrington or Otis (depending on how Otis votes on September 9), but one thing is sure - IF SAD63 CONSOLIDATES with anyone, it will be a K-8 plan with an on-going high school option. And that's the only RSU aspect that's applicable to any discussion.
Therefore, why the rush to give away any SAD63 land? There isn't even an RSU committee to discuss any potential consolidation. The State of Maine voters may vote to repeal consolidation altogether in November, in which case SAD63 will stay exactly the way it is. So why give away the very land SAD63 currently has before we know if we will be consilidating with anyone.
The only reason I can see for the rush is because the Town of Holden, particularly Councilman Harvey, wants the land for whatever reason the Town of Holden may have.
The TAXPAYERS of SAD63 are the ones who should be making this decision. Can we be sure how our communities will be growing or evolving over the next 10 years? Do we know how the change in Route 9 will impact the need for the Property in question or the need for the Holden School to be able to expand? For sure the Towns of Eddington and Clifton need to be active participants in this decision and their representatives on the School Board need to know how their constituents feel before any vote is taken.
Friday, August 28, 2009
THE ISSUE IS LAND - NOT THE OLD RSU PROPOSAL
It has taken me these past few days to formalize my thoughts (with the help of friends) re: the issue of the Town of Holden's request for the SAD63 School Board to transfer certain parcels of land currently a part of the Holden Elementary School to the Town of Holden.
This issue has been going on for several months. It almost culminated at this past Monday night's School Board meeting and Holden Councilman Harvey certainly expected it would.
However, while the Town of Holden had reportedly sent its formal and legally prepared proposal to School Board Chairman Varnum a month ago, none of the Board members received it until the Tuesday prior to the Board meeting. And neither the Eddington nor Clifton Boards of Selectpersons had received it. As a result of that delay, neither the School Board nor Eddington nor Clifton had had the opportunity to have their legal counsels review the proposal nor consider the opinions of their constituencies.
Not only are those steps important, they are legally required. Without these steps, the towns of Eddington and Clifton could file suit against the School Board. Regardless of an opinion expressed by Interim Superintendent Hart at the Monday meeting (that Board members are elected to make such decisions), there are legal precedents that would give Eddington and Clifton grounds to file legal action (a.k.a. a law suit) against the School Board should the it vote away the property in question without first consulting with the Boards of Selectpersons of Eddington and Clifton. And "consulting does not mean listing "Holden Town Deed" on the Board's Agenda, regardless of comments by Board Member Ellis (rep from Holden). And that was how the issue listed, with no indication that there was any intent of a final vote planned - not to mention that the formal documents had not been sent to the Selectpersons of Eddington or Clifton.
So, let's look at the Town of Holden's Proposal and then ask a few questions.
The proposal has been set forth in the form of a Release Deed, which states as follows:
"SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT #63, located at Holden, Penobscot County, Maine, for consideration paid, released to the INHABITANTS OF THE TOWN OF HOLDEN, a municipality located in Holden, Penobscot County, Maine, all of the District's right, title or interest in and to the land and any improvements thereon located in Holden, Penobscot County, Maine, described as follows:
A certain lot or parcel of land with buildings wnd improvements thereon situated on the northerly side of Main Road (a.k.a. U.S. Route IA) in the Town of Holden, County of Penobscot, State of Maine and being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the northerly sideline of said Main Road, which point is further described as being the southeasterly corner of land now of the Inhabits (sic) the Town of Holden as described in a deed recorded at the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds in Volume 2595, Page 20;
Thence N 20 degrees 53' 44" E by and along the easterly line of land of the Inhabitants of the Town of Holden as described in Volume 2595, Page 20, a distance of 1132.34 feet to a point on the southerly line of land now or formerly of Granville Jennings as described in a deed recorded as the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds in volumn 3839, Page 254;
Thence S 71 degrees 47' 08" E by and along the southerly line of land of said Granville Jennings, a distance of 801.86 feet to an iron rod found at the northeasterly corner of land of School Administrative District #63 as described in a deed from the Maine School Building Authority to School Administrative District #63, which deed is recorded at the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds in Volume 2529, Page 115, said point is further described as being on the northwesterly line of land now or formerly of Philip Robinson as described in a deed recorded at the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds in Volume 3518, Page 193;
Thence S 31 degrees 08' 46" W by and along the northwesterly line of land of said Philip Robinson, a distance of 507.14 feet to a point on said line;
Thence N 61 degrees 09' 31" W, a distance of 262.78 feet to a #6 rebar with an aluminum cap stamped "PLS 1030" set'
Thence continuing on the same course N 61 degrees 09' 31" W, a distance of 174.15 feet to a #6 rebar with an aluminum cap stamped "PLS 1030" set;
Thence S 32 degrees 28' 29" W, a distance of 202.92 feet to a #6 rebar with an aluminum cap stamped "PLS 1030" set;
Thence S 10 degrees 57' 54" E, a distance of 125.34 feet to a #6 rebar with an aluminum cap stamped "PLS 1030" set;
Thence S 25 degrees 47' 19" W, a distance of 219.71 feet to a #6 rebar with an aluminum cap stamped "PLS 1030" set near the left field corner of the ballfield;
Thence S 38 degrees 51' 28" W, a distance of 224.04 feet to a point on the northerly sideline of said Main Road;
Thence running in a mortherly direction by and along the northerly sideline of said Main Road following a 2503.72 foot radius curve to the left, an arc distance of 215.75 feet to the point of beginning.
EXCEPTING AND RESERVING to the Grantor, its successors and assigns, an easement to maintain, repair, replace and use the existing parking area encroaching onto the above described parcel as depicted on a survey plan dated Octobet 23, 2008 prepared by Plisga & Day, Land Surveyors, being further identified as Project 90228.
THis conveyance is made expressly subject to the right of the Grantor to requwst reconveyances to it of portions of the above described portions of the above descrived parcel, or easements thereon, upon 4evidencing a need for use of such portions or easements for school purpowes, including but not limited to the replacement or expansion of the subsurface wastewater disposal system serving Grantor's remaining land or the construction of additional educational facilities. Provided, however that the right reserved to Grantor shall not apply to any portion of the conveyed property, which at the time of any such request, is being used by the Grantee for municipal purposes (emphasis added by this writer) or for other purposes for which the consent of the Grantor has been obtained or to any other portion as may have been conveyed by the Grantee with the consent of the Grantor.
The above described lot or parcel of land contains 12.14 acres, more or less, and is a portion of the premises desribed in a deed from the Maine School Building Authority to School Administrate Diwtrict #63, dated February 24, 1975 and recorded at the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds in Volume 2529 , Page 115 and a portion of the premises described in a deed from Richard C. Cook to School Administrative District #63, dated August 15, 1988 and recorded at the Penobscot COunty Registry of Deeds in Volume 4290, Page 50.
Bearings referenced herein are oriented to True North and are based on a survey dated October 23, 2008 by PLISGA & DAY, Land SUrbeyors, and said survey is further identified as Project No. 90228.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, School Administrative District #63 has caused this instrument to be executed and delivered by ______, its Superintendent, this ___ day of _____. 2009.
And there follows Notoary Public Signature veification...
ATTACHED TO THE RELEASE DEED IS THE FOLLOWING - JOINT USE AGREEMENT - :
This Agreement is entered into by and between MAINE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT #63 ("District") and the TOWN OF HOLDEN ("Town") as of the ___ day of ________, 2009.
RECITALS
A. Town conveyed a parcel of land to the Maine School Building Authority ("Authority") by deed dated May 29, 1954, recorded in the Penboscot County Registry of Deeds in Book 1444, age 248.
B. The Authority conveyed the same parcel of land to the District by deed dated February 24, 1975, recorded in the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds in Book 2529, Page 115.
C. District conveyed a portion of the parcel to Town by deed dated October 9, 1975, recorded in the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds in Book 2595, Page 20.
D. District released its remaining interest in the parcel conveyed to Town by deed dated June 23, 2008, recorded in the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds in Book 11457, Page 229.
E. District acquired an additional parcel of land from Richard C. Cook by deed dated August 15, 1988, recorded in the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds in Book 4290, Page 50.
F. District has agreed to convey 12.14 acres of its property to Town, as shown on a survey dated October 23, 2008, prepared by Plisga & Day, Landy Surveyors, a reduced copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A (hereinafter the "Property").
G. District has traditionally used the ball field and appurtenances thereto located on the Property, as shown on the survey plan, for school purposes, and the parties desire to enter into this Agreement to allow the continuation of that use.
H. Town has traditionally used said ball fields and appurtenances thereto as part of its recreational programs.
I. Town has also agreed to allow the District to use the Town's ajacent property for overflow parking for school events.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, the parties hereby agree as follows:
1. Town shall continue to provide overall maintenance and repair of the ball field and the associated improvements (including the dugouts and chain-link fencing).
2. District shall be permitted to provide supplemental maintenanmce and repair of the ball field and associated improvements.
3. District shall have priority for the use of the ball field and associated improvements during the school year. District, through the Principal of Holden School (or designee) shall consult with Town's Manager (or designee) concerning the scheduling of any school usage of that facility during the school year, and the coordination of any Town usage of the same during the school year.
4. During school summer vacation, Town shall have the priority for the use of the ball field and associated improvements for its recreational programs. Town, through its Town Manager (or designee), shall consult with Holden School's Principal (or designee) concerning the scheduling of Town usage of that facility during the school summer vacation, and the coordination of and school usage of that facility during school vacation.
5. Both District and Town shall retain any immunities from liabilities available to them under Maine law, or any other source.
6. Any proposals relating to major repair or replacement of the existing recreational facilities on the Property, or the development of new recreational facilities on the Property, shall be presented by the proposing party to the other party for review. If the proposed improvements are to be jointly used by the parties, the parties shall negotiate in good faith to develop an agreement on the funding and maintenance of such improvements, and any necessary or appropriate amendments to this Agreement. If the Town proposes the improvements and the District does not elect to utilize the same for school purposes, Town shall be responsible for the payment for, and the maintenance of, the improvements. If District proposes the improvements and Town approves them, but does not elect to utilize the same ofr municipal purposes, District shall be responsible for the payment for, and the maintenance of, the improvements.
7. District shall have the right to use any parking areas onthe Parperty, or on ajacent property owned by the TOwn, for overflow parking for any school events. The Principal (or designee) and the Town Manager (or Designee) shall consult on the Scheduling of major events by either party in an attempt to avoid conflicting demands for parking.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on their behalf, in duplicate counterparts, as of the date first above written.
TOWN OF HOLDEN
Signatures from Holden Town Manager and MSAD#63 Superintendent (with witnesses)
So NOW MY QUESTIONS AND THOUGHTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
Let's be clear about what is currently occupying the Property Holden wants conveyed from SAD63 to the Town of Holden. Aside from degrees and measurements, What are we really talking about? (According to Councilman Harvey, in his mostly one-way conversation with me in the parking lot outside the Holbrook School, the Veterans Memorial, the Nature Walk trails, the supplementary parking lot [that SAD63 just paved at the mandate of the Town of Holden at a Taxpayer cost of $40,000], and the ball field are all on the 12.14 acres of Property to be conveyed if this proposal is approved.)
1. How did this Property come to be part of SAD63 in the first place? Councilman Harvey told me that the Property in question originally belonged to Holden. There is reference to parcels of the Property originally belonging to Granville Jennings and Philip Robinson in the Release Deed.
If taxpayers ("Taxpayers") from the towns of Eddington, Clifton and Holden had to compensate either individuals or the Town of Holden for the Property to become part of SAD63, then some form of compensation to the Taxpayers should be made in exchange for releasing the property to the Town of Holden, even if some form of shared usage results.
2. There is nothing in the Release Deed or Recitals that guarantees the Property will be held by the Town of Holden for Public Access, meaning that it will not be sold to a third party or used for exclusive town business purposes. While there were verbal assurances by individuals at the School Board meetings, without the guarantee in writing, there is no legal binding. Additionally, note the caveat the Town of Holden has included in the "Excepting and Reserving" section of the Release Deed (highlighted in red by this writer). What safeguard is there for Taxpayers that the Town of Holden will not convert any portion for a "municipal purpose" such as an additional municipal building.
3. The Veterans Memorial is included in the Property to be conveyed to the Town of Holden. The Memorial was created through fund-raising efforts by the eighth-grade students at Holbrook Middle School. While there may be some discussion as to the fiscal responsibility for flag replacement at the Memorial, the Memorial was clearly the result of SAD63 students. Should the ground on which the Memorial stands be separated from SAD63 property?
4. The Nature Walk trails are part of the property to be conveyed to the Town of Holden. Councilman Harvey told me the trails are maintained by Holden volunteers. He also stated that the trails were created by financial grants. (My impression was he intended to infer the trails were not developed by SAD63 Taxpayers.) If the grant applications suggested or flatly stated the trails would benefit the education of SAD63 students, the grantors may have elected to fund the Nature Walk trails because of the school district association and because the trails were on the property of the Holden Elementary School.
5. For all of the Taxpayers funding (for maintenance, improvements, taxes, insurances, etc.) since the Property became part of SAD63, some form of compensation to the Taxpayers should be issued by the Town of Holden for the Release Deed proportionate to any agreement of joint use and authorization of control.
6. FINALLY, in no way does the argument of the former RSU discussion apply to this issue. The OLD RSU proposal dealt with the potential consolidation with Brewer and an RSU Board that would have had a significant representation from the community. It was for that reason many issues regarding land associated with the Eddington, Holbrook and Holden schools were discussed. The OLD RSU proposal was soundly defeated and is dead. DEAD. Off the table. Even though there have been individuals who have tried to get the School Board Chairman to appoint a NEW RSU Committee to get started, nothing has been done. The only things that have been done is TALK. The current Interim Superintendent firmly believes SAD63 will consolidate with someone in the coming year. There is "TALK" that SAD63 may enter consolidation discussion with Dedham or Orrington or Otis (depending on how Otis votes on September 9), but one thing is sure - IF SAD63 CONSOLIDATES with anyone, it will be a K-8 plan with an on-going high school option. And that's the only RSU aspect that's applicable to any discussion.
Therefore, why the rush to give away any SAD63 land? There isn't even an RSU committee to discuss any potential consolidation. The State of Maine voters may vote to repeal consolidation altogether in November, in which case SAD63 will stay exactly the way it is. So why give away the very land SAD63 currently has before we know if we will be consilidating with anyone.
The only reason I can see for the rush is because the Town of Holden, particularly Councilman Harvey, wants the land for whatever reason the Town of Holden may have.
The TAXPAYERS of SAD63 are the ones who should be making this decision. Can we be sure how our communities will be growing or evolving over the next 10 years? Do we know how the change in Route 9 will impact the need for the Property in question or the need for the Holden School to be able to expand? For sure the Towns of Eddington and Clifton need to be active participants in this decision and their representatives on the School Board need to know how their constituents feel before any vote is taken.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Meeting August 19 2009
The board meeting was called to order at 7pm
-bid for 1600 yards of road sand was awarded to the lower bidder of Musson Construction in the amount of $13,500. High bid was $20,240
-Eric Johns gave a report on the planning board and workshops planned.
-CEO report, a printed report was given and Mr. Leavitt answered questions. $300 was voted toward a 1/4 of a new computer for CEO with other towns.
-ACO, printed report was given. There are two complaints, one in written form and the other from a citizen who was present. A special meeting will be held next Wednesday to discuss the ACO report.
-A printed report regarding fire and EMS calls was provided.
-No SAD report
-Complaint about potholes on Getchel road - repaired
-Treasurers report was given.
-From the clerk, PVCOG report, November voting item (excise tax), concealed weapons application, oath of office forms, state shut down days (do we want to shut down also - board said no), letter and assessments from mr Haverly on the Bradley Chemo properties, newsletter discussion (lorin will submit idea for next meeting)
Old Business: why didn't we have the meeting with Pleasent St residents regarding the fencing and ATV's.
New - possible to get 2nd grading - no funds. Carol talked about private road issue and culvert.
Warrants signed
-bid for 1600 yards of road sand was awarded to the lower bidder of Musson Construction in the amount of $13,500. High bid was $20,240
-Eric Johns gave a report on the planning board and workshops planned.
-CEO report, a printed report was given and Mr. Leavitt answered questions. $300 was voted toward a 1/4 of a new computer for CEO with other towns.
-ACO, printed report was given. There are two complaints, one in written form and the other from a citizen who was present. A special meeting will be held next Wednesday to discuss the ACO report.
-A printed report regarding fire and EMS calls was provided.
-No SAD report
-Complaint about potholes on Getchel road - repaired
-Treasurers report was given.
-From the clerk, PVCOG report, November voting item (excise tax), concealed weapons application, oath of office forms, state shut down days (do we want to shut down also - board said no), letter and assessments from mr Haverly on the Bradley Chemo properties, newsletter discussion (lorin will submit idea for next meeting)
Old Business: why didn't we have the meeting with Pleasent St residents regarding the fencing and ATV's.
New - possible to get 2nd grading - no funds. Carol talked about private road issue and culvert.
Warrants signed
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)