A few observations about the override season now upon us. If an override were proposed which restored the residential rate to last year's level, it would raise about $3 million dollars in added revenue. What I am saying is, for example, if your tax bill was reduced by $200 due to the adoption of the split tax rate and the override amount added $200 to your tax bill, then the amount of added revenue raised by restoring everyone to last years tax amount would be $3 million. Of course, not everyone is back to the previous level because businesses are now paying more.
The school department has already floated a plan for a menu of override questions totaling nearly $4 million. We have not yet heard from the town side with their menu of override questions. But I would not be surprised if it was for a similar amount.
You can learn more about the budget process for the town and schools and about the override process here, here and here.
So it seems that the town will be asking voters to raise their taxes above the amount that they were reduced by going to the split rate. Do you think that the voters will approve the override? Let us know in comments.
Monday, January 28, 2008
How much is too much
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
Come on down. The next two contestants in the price is right override sweepstakes were giving their pitch at the select board meeting tonight. And the actual request numbers are (drum roll please) Police---$576,348 and libraries---$148,489. I must say that I was impressed with the police presentation. They have not been crying wolf in the past and made a good case with statistics. I think they should get some money. Speaking of their stats, let's give a big hand to the juveniles. Their category of crime was the only one to go down in the last three years. Of course if the cops had caught only 10% of the little hoodlums who were coming to my house several times a day last year during the override campaign, that stat would also have risen. The library presentation was creative. They compared a municipal appropriation request with a road to ruin budget(i kid you not) and then gave the difference. They also made the not-so-obvious conclusion that fewer library services result in a higher crime rate.(huh?) Their request was structured in three parts, materials $63k, staff $26k, and re-opening the N.D. branch $59k. I beleive these were prioritized in that order and from the response of the board the library shouldn't have their hopes too high. The tone was that public safety was priority one with them.
Barry,
I thought this blog was implemented to exchange ideas that may improve our town not a platform to mock its officials. I have to say I admire the woman who presented the state of our library system. It’s no surprise to anyone that these services will be cut. Joe said it all when he said “nice to have” will not get funded. So why mock her? You apparently have never held a position in management where you need to present annual budgets. It’s not just money and services you try to preserve but people’s jobs as well. I realize the faces behind the figures mean little to you. But if she didn’t show enthusiasm for what she believed in you would be writing what a deadbeat and demand that she include herself in the next round of cuts. Here is a thoughtful suggestion for your committee. Cut all town side service by 50%. Who cares if Dartmouth becomes the “Wild West”? If it was good enough for the founding fathers then it should be good enough for us. You say that you believe the Police need additional monies. Well where will that money come from? Every department has been asked and has complied with cutting their expenses. To find money for one department will require additional cuts from another weakening their effectiveness. It’s all a shell game and you heard Joe say last night that there is only $10m discretionary cash to draw from. It would be refreshing to hear from you, what if anything, in Dartmouth is working to your satisfaction. It would also me good form if you showed respect for our town officials and not mock them. It’s ok to disagree but like it or not they are all trying their best.
Quagmire,
It was not my intention to mock any of our hard working administrators. I simply wanted to inject some humor into what is a difficult situation for the town. You question where the money would come from for the police and public safety. The answer is an override. I firmly beleive what the chief said about crime increasing when the economy goes south. Beleive it or not I would like to endorse an override. However it needs to be responsible and take into consideration those who are less fortunate. The ones who are struggling to decide between food, medicine, heat and taxes(or forclosure). My personal feelings on the library are that we cannot afford to re-open the N.D. branch. I applaud their efforts to raise money. They have done a fine job. I would even consider attending their play but frankly, I don't want to hang around with you and your liberal elite friends. No offense, I like you well enough but your just not my cup of tea. We need to encourage the use of the UMASS library for those in the north end of town. The Southworth library should take into account what they offer and focus on providing what they don't.
I believe that the actions of our elected officials are fair game for constructive criticism. Here is what bothered me about last night's meeting. The CFRG had requested to be put on the agenda to address progress being made on the DOR recommendations focussing on the personal contract recommendation #7. Our request was ignored and then at the last minute DOR recommendation progress was put on the agenda of course without notifying us. When it came to recommendation #7 a lame excuse was given for not following the recommendation. If I am to help my beloved town convince people to support funding that is needed then our elected officials have to face up to the issue of administrative salaries and benefits. They clearly showed no willingness to do that last night. How can we work together to make them see that this issue needs to be addressed?
Last night's Select Board meeting treated us to a little kabuki theater and illustrated some important points. We need a plan! We need to set priorities!
The shortfall in this years budget has been well known for a year and probably much longer than that. Th Finance Committee had a spreadsheet that clearly shows the shortfalls for FY09 and coming years. I saw it last fall. It shows a $1.4 million shortfall for FY09. In fact, the failed override request from last year included money to cover this shortfall. Now we learn that the police chief was told over the weekend that his budget will be cut. His presentation intended to ask for additional funding and he was shocked to learn about reduction in funding. Why?
Same with the library director, no idea that her budget request would be trimmed. Why?
Both these department heads were told on Friday or over the weekend that there would be a 10% across the board cut in funding for departments. What had they been told earlier? Why are they coming to make presentations for increased funding, when it was well known that the budget was in the red? Who set the priorities for cutting the funding at 10% across the board? I think that these instances illustrate the lack of leadership and planning that plagues the budget process in the town. I admit that having the information sooner would not change the shortfall but it would give the department heads time (more than a weekend!) to plan for that shortfall. What we saw last night was the police chief and library director being blind sided. Our full time administrators need to come up with a plan to run the town with a budget where expense growth and revenue growth are proportionate. The Select Board must advise them on the priorities. That needs to happen sooner rather than later. We have full time,highly paid administrators, department heads, and supervisors in the town and schools. It is their job to deliver the best possible service at the lowest cost to the taxpayer. Reduced funding means that they must make difficult choices including whether or not to layoff employees. It is going to be painful, it is going to be contentious. As I see it, the town has this choice. Either we develop a plan where revenue and expense growth are equal or we continue to fall short year after year and need higher and higher taxes (override after override) to support the ever widening gap between expense and revenue. Let me state this another way, if our revenue is growing at 3% per year but our expenses are growing at 5% per year, the gap never ends. At the above percentages, the revenue shortfall for a $66 million dollar budget is $1.3 million. For the following year, the shortfall is $2.8 million. And on and on from there. The pain never ends until you reconcile the growth in spending to the growth in revenue. That's what I'm advocating, stop the pain by getting these two, revenue and expenses, in sync.
Random thoughts on all the above:
1. I have said elsewhere on this blog that we need to be nicer to our officials. They do work hard and try their best, however it is apparent to me that they have never had to run a business that is in financial trouble. If that business only "wishes" that the sales increase so they can have more revenue as their only way out of the hole they won't survive. Anyone can run a business when things are "fat", however they need to be responsive to the changing world. Expenses have to be brought under control because our "sales" our dropping.
2. Our Privatization Committee has explored a couple of options on trying to get a library service in the north end of town. We talked to both our school folks and the UMD folks. The problem was correctly stated by Ms. Medeiros last night. The catalog of what our citizens would want is not present at either school library, and there is no space to expand the inventory. She also correctly stated the parking problem at UMD. We had a hard time finding parking just for the meeting we held there, and that was at 6:30 p.m. We are exploring other options to try and preserve the 1 remaining library we have. I do agree that it seems strange to me to be asking for extra money to reopen the north branch when many of us are trying to figure out how to save Southworth.
3. I have advocated for 2 years that we need to prioritize every town dept./service. Everything gets a number from 1 to whatever, no duplicates. When limited money comes in you start at the top with the extra funding and apportion on justified need, when cuts need to be made you start at the bottom. In my mind the Police are number 1.
This is predicated on every dept. already running lean and not able to absorb an x% cut across the board. With this system the residents/taxpayers could clearly see what is in danger when things get tougher, and with that picture make a conscious decision on whether they want to pay more taxes, or not.
4. It is going to take a while before the house is in order. Some of the mandated expenses are caused by outside forces, such as the Voke assessment. Others are mandated internally by contracts that were agreed to. The proof in the pudding will be when these contracts come due and we get to see what adjustments are made. There has already been some progress on the medical insurance front by having expert involvement, and this is encouraging. We need to find smarter ways to provide good benefits for our Town employees without breaking the bank, but as I said, some of this is going to take time because of union contracts, as well as personal contracts. Escalating costs of benefits is killing us.
5. Once I see more results of efficiency moves by both the Town side and the school side, I personally would be willing to support a reasonable override to preserve things that have made this town a great place to live in and grow up in. However, to just throw money at the problem is not a long term fix and enables the "business as usual" many of us don't like. It is fundamentally unsound to "plan" to spend more money than we have coming in, this is the problem. Citizens and businesses can't run their lives that way and neither should a government. The taxpayers are not a bottomless well of money, and the way things currently are, that is what is needed.
6. The feedback I have received regarding the 40% split is that most people are not happy. They feel they got "cheated" out of the full 50% they were promised. They also state that they view the savings as payback for the PAYT program. If a resident is a minimal trash user, 1 large bag, and has a $400K home, they pretty much break even. Anyone with a home worth less than that or puts out more trash is still on the negative side. There doesn't seem to be any appetite for any override at all, however quite a few people have stated they would support a reasonable Capital Exclusion or Debt Exclusion because they are finite.
Frank, as always you make perfect sense. I agree with your thoughts and I would like to focus on our existing contracts,salaries and benefits. Before I am willing to vote for an override to add additional salaries, the generous compensation must go away. I realize there are issues with our existing contracts and we will have to wait until those contracts come up again to renegotiate. However new hires are a different story. There are many people out of work. Certainly a lot of those people have been let go by other towns in the same financial predicament. The police chief informed us last night that there are police officials waiting to be rehired. We have the perfect opportunity to negotiate contracts that will help the town save money while putting people back to work who we desperately need. It's a win win situation. Here is what we are offering, take it or leave it. I think some of those officers on that list would be happy to take us up on the offer. These are not people at the bottom of the barrel. They are public servants who have been let go due to budget restraints. We can no longer afford to be so generous with vacation buyouts and salaries that most people in town feel are excessive. You don't need me to tell you that. Just look at the impact the issue of SoCo magazine regarding salaries had on the public. It's quite clear the town of Dartmouth has been a very good place to work. The only complaint I have ever heard is that there are never any openings available for either the town or the schools. I wonder why. The notion that if we don't pay these salaries we won't have good people just doesn't hold water with me. I have a feeling that if it came down to it, Dartmouth taxpayers would be getting no services at all and we would still have the same number of people working with the same salaries and benefits. What they would be doing I don't know.
To all I would like to state that I am far from being an elite liberal. In fact, I am a rather ordinary conservative. I realize that my favoring an over ride or any increase in taxation flies against the fundamental principles of my own political beliefs. But here is why I differ. I agree with most everything FrankG says here. I especially like his item #3 suggestions. However, the problem with managing decline is that it doesn’t necessarily lead towards recovery. I worked for a major corporation that for many years went through cost cutting, downsizing, right sizing, outsourcing, layoffs, and bankruptcy protection and in the end the loss of revenue sank the ship. In every organization there will always be a level of mismanagement, poor communication, bureaucracy and the like. That is the price of doing business. You will not find an institution anywhere that is immune to these behaviors. We need to reasonably establish what is an acceptable accountability threshold? Level setting expectations can be a major step towards bridging our gaps. This will hasten the healing process and ultimately bring about a suitable compromise and remedy. Also please let’s not turn this discussion into class warfare. One of the key factors that lead to the final sinking of the ship I mentioned before was the mass exodus of the talent pool after years of pay freezes, loss benefits, etc. Please let’s not contemplate that strategy here. You get what you pay for. You may find people willing to work for lower wages then they are worth for a period of time. But as economies change they will quickly leave. I don’t think any of us want a revolving-door workforce.
Kali, I bet you and I could exchange lots of "war stories". I worked for Polaroid for 33 years and went through EVERYTHING you mentioned. The big difference is that at my plant we didn't have a large exodus of talent. The workforce losses we had were forced. Even with stagnant wages and lost benefits we were still in a "fair" position because the rest of the world was also changing. Any of us would have had to travel hundreds of miles just to break even. We chose to bite the bullet and adjusted our personal lives.
Only 12% of companies that file for bankruptcy come out of it, and we did, however, they eventually sold off the name, and then the facility to a holding company which eventually closed. When your bills are $18M per year and you are taking in $12M this is no surprise, or at least shouldn't be.
The problem was bad management decisions at the very top. There was funding of R&D programs that cost millions, and even if the end product worked perfectly it was going to compete against other technologies that cost the consumer less than 1/2. Not a good plan. We also had the very top level of management rape the company, hire their friends to help them fill their pockets, all while the rest of us sacrificed. Thankfully the Feds protected the pension that us long-time employees had coming to us, because they raped that too.
The important points in both of our experiences is that the companies reacted to the changing economy and situation, and TRIED to do significant things to impact the bottom line. Our town didn't get into the current problems overnight, this was entirely foreseeable, yet they just kept chugging along doing things the way they always did, eating up reserves and looking through sock draws for loose change.
To continue to count on State aid and spend it before you actually see it, new growth that everyone should have known couldn't continue at the rate we had seen, and guarantee people 3% and 4% raises when the only guaranteed increase in revenue was the 2.5% from the increase in the tax levy, is not prudent. Forced mandates are not new either, you plan for them.
Over this past year one of the surprises was the decrease in the excise tax revenue, which is a BIG player for us. You and I could have grabbed 5 people at random and predicted that people weren't going to keep buying new vehicles at the previous rate. Why couldn't they?
On the school side, I personally have no direct knowledge of whether Dr. Russell is overpaid. That is an area where I suspect it is important to pay, and required. I can also tell you that it is not the teachers who are "getting rich", it is all the people between Dr. Russell and them that are the big cost. Do they need so many of the middle people? I'll bet your experience agrees with mine in that the first jobs that were looked at were all the middle managers. That is where organizations get fat over the years.
On the school side and the town side it is not the front-line workers who are getting the big bucks, but I can also tell you that their benefit packages are much better than what industry provides. Is there some room for providing a fair wage and fair benefits to good workers, and still save the town money? Sure, I always believe that the answers are in the gray area.
Didn't your company adjust medical plans offered each year so as to provide good benefits while making things more affordable for the company? We have let "peoples choices" drive the evolution, because the individuals have to pay 50% of the cost, and recognized a little at a time that they were getting whacked with big increases. Well, so was the town. Managing by "attrition of choice" is also not prudent. Master Medical got taken off the table at Polaroid at least 15 years ago. Not so in our town, as it was still offered last year.
All our town workers are valuable to us, as are the teachers, but an organization can only provide what it can provide. Balance is needed.
Do I believe that we need an override? Yes, but I need to see some of the effort and attitude change that your company and mine went through, otherwise it will be just override after override after override. The FinCom has published graphs that show the increase in expenses out in time. The BRTF validated the same information, yet nothing significant has happened yet to stem the tide. I believe that there is too much time spent planning on the next override and not enough effort in trying to get expenses under control. Getting a better, more realistic picture of the future needs is what the taxpayers/voters need to see before approving a large override that is nothing more than a short-term bailout.
Frank,
All good points and right on the money. While I was hoping to see this prioritized plan for the future by now, it looks like it may never happen. With regard to you not supporting an override until attitudes change, I'm afraid the only way that will happen may be through the election process. The main reason my stance against an override has softened is that the lack of priorities seem to now have us with a public safety and security problem. My humble opinion is that a menu driven override would see the police dept. get their money. It brings me no pleasure to say this but one whole department that is not needed is the youth advocate. Just look at how much is in the school budget for social workers and psychologists. I'm sure this guy is dedicated and he should be offered the first job opening that he is qualified for but the whole department is a low priority. We need leaders with the guts to make these decisions.
FrankG I must say I enjoyed reading your piece and you are correct we have very similar war stories. Unless someone goes through such a process it’s hard for anyone to understand how difficult it is to live through continuous uncertainty. But you do get through it and I hope you have done well in a new venture, whatever that might be. I find it hard to disagree with many of your arguments so I won’t try to. But what I think is lacking in this process is a clear list of items presented to the Select board that if satisfied will turn the tide towards collaboration. No disrespect but all I’ve seen and read from others thus far are rolling wish lists that seemingly change daily. We cannot micromanage this problem or we will never accomplish anything. We can’t expect 100% compliance in order to believe the town has turned the corner. Let’s come up with a reasonable attainable list of threshold items that can be put in place relatively quickly. Let’s stop the rhetoric of mistrust and let’s not include items that by law can’t be realized anytime soon. I think there is an opportunity here if we can just get by the emotions. No one wants to see an over ride required every year. You are very correct when you say this problem occurred over many years. Spending the reserve was the way prior boards avoided the pain of fiscal responsibility. But I think you will agree with me that this is a new board and with it a new era. The 2mil held in reserve rather then turning the lights back on was a big step don’t you thing?
TheSherpa,
I think what the electorate wants is progress toward the goal of reconciling revenue with expenses. What we have seen is a Select Board and School Committee cheerleading for overrides, absent any clear plan to get us to sound fiscal footing.
Here is what I would propose to get there. No lists, no numbers, no emotions, just actions.
First, I would like to see this "new era" board ask their employees to deliver a forecast of revenue and expenses out for 3 to 5 years at the next Select Board meeting.
Next, I would like to see the board require their employees to submit a plan for bringing expense growth in line with revenue growth by the meeting following that at which the forecast is presented. I would like this board to present a list of priorities (public safety, public health, sewer, water, or whatever, we can debate that as we go) to their employees and require that the plan that is returned conform to those priorities.
Finally, once there is a plan to get to a sustainable budget, we can discuss whether any of the items cut should be restored via an override question. Having forecast the trends, established priorities, laid out a plan, and shown what will be cut, all in public forum, the voters can be satisfied that their tax dollars are being wisely spent.
Same thing for the School Committee.
Is there a reason that the above steps could not be started at the very next Select Board and School Committee meetings?
I am not trying to bring anyone down or show anyone up. I think these are valid and reasonable steps toward a solution.
If I'm mistaken, please explain to me where I am off target and why, and tell me how you would adjust these steps to achieve the desired end of a sustainable budget.
Barry - Let me be clear about my thoughts. My position on an override is the same as it was last year, which was that I would support a small patch override to stop degradation of major services, while the plan takes shape. What I won't support is a large override that hinders overall progress on getting a proper foundation for the future.
I believe that there has been some adjustment in the thought process of the leaders, just not much to show for it on the tally sheet yet. There will be some union contract discussions coming up so we will see how that goes.
I would also guess that they will never let the Police take that kind of a hit. The money will have to come from somewhere deemed less critical. Let's just say as an example that the library becomes the target. My Privatization Committee has had some positive discussions on that front, and it may be possible to maintain that service for significantly less money, if that scenario is needed.
Kali - Thanks for the good wishes, I am doing just fine. It was a horrible experience to have to live through, but as the saying goes, it didn't kill me so it made me stronger.
I actually left 3 years ago tomorrow, when they decided they didn't need a Process Engineering dept. anymore. They kept one of the "youngsters" and put him into the production group to try and fight all the fires.
I then did a little bit of computer consulting but decided that I could live off my pension and some investments, so "early retired" at 55. My wife is still working so that is where the medical comes from. Being good conservatives we have lived debt-free for a long time, and when you don't have debt you don't need a big paycheck.
I decided to use my free time to try and help the Town, a give-back of sorts. I am now on my 3rd committee and trying to have a positive impact on things. Some of the many skills I have acquired, math, "valuing diversity", team-building, project management, as well as the "running the business" courses have all come in handy.
The reason I would like to see everyone get along better is because there is a lot more common ground than seems to meet the eye. Everyone wants a better Dartmouth, we all just disagree on some of the details. As one of my smart friends always said to me, if 2 people agree on everything then one of them is unnecessary.
As a BRTF member we provided the leaders with our take on some specific things that should help the future. We quickly found out that there was no magic bullet to fix the problem, but some relief in some of the self-induced mandates was in order. I have mentioned some of those things, like the 2.5% raises, fairer medical coverage plans offered, better contract negotiations through the use of experts, and finding ways to save on retirement benefits without casting aside our valued employees' needs. Been there, lived that, and I wish it on no one. The DOR provided some specific things also, and there has been some progress on that front, again slowly.
Unfortunately what residents asked for last year was accountability through a running tally sheet, which hasn't happened. Progress needs to be measured, and also unfortunately many of the long-term fixes are, well, long-term to implement.
We also recognized that an override would be necessary at some point to help with the externally-mandated items. Where I differed with some of my colleagues was when that should happen. Many of the group jumped into the support of the $8.4M, but I felt that was too much too soon and would serve as an enabler to not look hard for the proper foundation that is really needed.
I do agree that the building up of the Stab and Reserve funds was a good business decision, although not turning on the street lights was not popular. Strong reserves can only help the future and our bond ratings.
As I have mentioned before, I don't live in a black and white world, it is gray. Things don't have to be all or nothing. In a discussion with my grandson I asked him if he knew what compromise meant. He said yeah, you give a little and I give a little, and no one ends up happy. Wise words from a youngster, but compromise is almost always the best solution.
As I mentioned to Barry above, I am still in support of a small override to stop the degradation of important Town services, especially the Police. I certainly don't want my town to crumble, but again, we all may differ on the definition of crumble. There is always pain with progress and ultimately the progress is what is most important.
I am somewhat encouraged by the limited progress, unfortunately it hasn't been such that it can be measured with a yardstick. There is still a lot of mistrust in our town, and that is what drives some of the collaboration needed.
Post a Comment