Final Vote: 2231 No – 1531 Yes

The final vote for the $3.2M override was 2231 No – 1531 Yes (60% – 40%).

All voting results can be found by clicking here.

This entry was posted in $3.2M Override. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Final Vote: 2231 No – 1531 Yes

  1. Alan says:

    It’s sad that only 3762 voters showed up out of over 13000 registered! It shows the path the country is taking. Whats even sadder is most of the yes votes are from people who think they are helping education. But it just shows how uneducated they are. The Republic was formed with the believe in limited government and all the founding fathers believed that being a land owner was critical for Liberty! None of the founding fathers supported property taxes. I think the people who voted yes need to go back to school and learn history!

  2. Ben Cartwrightson says:

    ‘The Override, Thoughts & Opinion’

    Some may feel the Override Defeat was a loss and some may feel the Override Defeat was a win. I look at it as an opportunity for the Town to recalibrate a viable Budgetary plan going forward, and maybe some Town Official’s may now come to understand the true social and economic make up of the Town.

    The former Chair of the FINCOM use to talk to many Town’s people and especially those that would listen attentively. I would see the former FINCOM Chair in a local Grocery store and she would talk to me for sometimes up to an hour. One of things that was repeatedly told to me, was the Town would never approve anything over a $1 Million Dollar Override. So if she told me I can only surmise she may have told the present FINCOM Chair. I can honestly say in my years of living in the Town of Northbridge I know no other person that new the social and economic fiber of this Community better then her.

    If the School’s do their homework, plus show some Budgetary Reforms along with some structural reforms, a comprehensive plan, I think a $100,000 to $150,000 Debt exclusion every four of five years may be successful.

    Why Not Consider Some Of These:

    ONE:
    As mandated special-education spending continues to creep up, school systems across the South Shore are turning to “in district” programs in an effort to keep those expenses from getting out of control.
    LINK: http://www.patriotledger.com/article/20140421/News/140429650
    TWO:
    Schools Abandon Textbooks To Go All iPad
    The school saved money by getting rid of its computer labs, abandoning plans to build a new language lab and deciding it would no longer buy new textbooks.
    LINK: http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2012/03/23/schools-textbooks-ipad
    THREE:
    How Schools Are Making Solar Power Affordable
    Solar power can save schools money and give students a valuable educational experience.
    Read more at http://thejournal.com/articles/2013/04/30/how-schools-are-making-solar-power-affordable.aspx?admgarea=Features1#OLmDLzU0BwpXlf2S.99
    FOUR:
    School: Purchasing Collaborative s:
    If saving money is the goal, there are many studies that support effective but less-drastic approaches that keep schools in local hands, such as ‘purchasing collaboratives’, in which independent districts ‘join together’ to buy supplies or utilities, or share certain teachers or administrators, guidance counselors, secretaries, maint staff, janitors, school vehicles, bus transportation, snow removal. In Maine, consolidation opponents are pushing this option.
    Why not Uxbridge, and Douglas for Purchasing Collaborative s with Northbridge?

    The School’s must consider the Economic Condition’s of our Senior Citizens on Fixed Incomes, and our Shut-In’s in Town. How the Town and the School’s thought the Taxpayers would ever approve a $3.2 Million Dollar Override in this Economy, plus with no real improvement plan is mind boggling. Plus it may underscore the vacuum or bubble some of our Town Official may be living in, we can all debate this until the cow’s come home to include the human element. But we must move forward as a Town to come up with workable solution’s, plus I think it would be helpful if the School District put on it’s Website the Federal Unfunded Mandate the Schools keep talking about. I feel the State giving the Town almost $18 Million Dollars a year may be a higher road to travel in trying to attain funding for State Unfunded Mandate’s in my opinion.

    On a side issue it may have been brought to my attention the Town may be considering a $600,000 dollar to $800,000 dollar update to our present DPW. In my opinion we cannot shine a sneaker, plus their still may not be Town Sewer at the Fletcher Street site if these improvements are ever done. If the Town was smart they should look again at the $1.8 Million DPW facility template plan that was presented to the BPCC in August of 2012 by that ‘stellar’ private citizens group. I suggest it could be paid for by the Town taking out a 30 year bond, and using a very, very, minimal amount of our Chap 90 funding each year to pay for it.

    Some may say you cannot use Chap 90 funding well the Town of Sterling used it, and so have other Town’s in the Commonwealth.

    ‘Chapter 90 funds that had been set aside for a downtown renovation project were recently funneled into the new building instead.’

    Link:
    http://www.thelandmark.com/news/2007-07-05/Sterling_News/060.html

    Some may say the present site has to be used as a DPW site, well if you remember in 2012 if the Town had approved the Douglas Road site. The Town was going to tear down all the building except the brick building at Fletcher Street. Then pave over the site and loam what they could landscape to make a park, and the brick building was going to be used as a auxiliary DPW building for storage. So essence their still would be a DPW building on Fletcher Street, but it’s main operations would now be at the Providence Road site.

    In closing I look forward for the Town moving forward in a methodical comprehensive budget plan for our Town;s future, an all it’s endeavors.

  3. pathway says:

    It’s possible that those who rallied for an override will come to acknowledge a key reason for its failure: the absolute refusal of the Northbridge School Department to provide meaningful busing to the children of Whitinsville Christian School.

    The School Department approached WCS in 2007, when a $3.5m override failed, and cried poverty. They said they were short $3 million and as such the best they could do was to provide “non-meaningful busing, yet within the letter of the law busing.”
    Massachusetts General Laws requires the Town to provide busing to WCS because parents of WCS children pay local taxes.

    Since 2007, busing to WCS is essentially non-existence. Your WCS child can be dropped off in the morning almost 1 hour before school starts, and picked up 1 hour after school ends. Clearly this is not reasonable. The predictable result is that WCS children do not ride the bus, and the Northbridge School Department takes further advantage of taxpayers (WCS parents) who are not burdening the system with their children.

    But let’s remember: shortly after the Northbridge School Department cried poverty and implemented the “non-meaningful, yet letter-of-the-law busing to WCS”, they found $3 million in an account. The 2007 override question was proved to be a sham. The $3 million so-called shortfall, was there all the time.

    Why hasn’t busing been restored to WCS?

    Let’s face it, busing to WCS will never be restored. There will always be some other priority or some other need more important.

    The School Department sees no need to restore busing and the issue is miles off their radar screen.

    However, it’s not off the radar screen of WCS parents, grandparents, aunts, and uncles of WCS students.

    So let’s also face it: no override will ever pass unless and until busing is restored.

Leave a Reply to pathway Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>