I will be speaking and taking questions from those attending tonight at the Dartmouth Grange in Russels Mills Village at 7PM. Two candidates for School committee will also be there to present and answer questions. The Grange is on Fisher Road about 100 yards north of Russels Mills Road on the left hand side.
Hope to see you there!
Saturday, March 15, 2008
At the Grange tonight at 7PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
45 comments:
I've heard that Ms. Britto and Ms. Moniz will attend tonight. If so, I look forward to hearing their views on the override and issues we are facing in this town. Looking forward to it!
23 cars in total, 10 for CFRG, including Diane Gilbert, Maryann and Barry Walker,..., 3 for candidatses, 10 cars at most for people interested in what the CFRG has to say, and may of those were friends and family members of the candidates. Thank god the people of Dartmouth have not bought into the garbage the CGRG is selling. I do have hope for our Town. Vote Yes!!!!!!!
Rather than stand in the parking lot furtively counting cars (by the way, there were way more than 23 when I got there, but I was late) why not come inside and listen or ask questions? Have the people of Dartmouth completely lost their minds? I've heard the most insane comments from pro-override people and anti-override people over the past month. Frankly, it scares me. No wonder this town is in such a mess!
Here is my take on the event. The setting was great, real Americana. The turnout was good, a full house of fifty plus. The candidates all did well with these defining moments. Bill entertained albeit to a friendly crowd. He really had the crowd laughing when saying that he wasn't surprised the park dept director made the decision to lay off the two main employees and keep himself full-time. He followed by saying that he feels there is room to consolidate some of the administrative positions within the town. Joan Britto was unfazed by engaging a crowd that was clearly the fiscally responsible type and being confronted by some of the tough questions that were posed. Joanne Moniz had a couple of "moments." The first one was when she was confronted with the issue of administrative compensation and replied that "you get what you pay for." She did score some points in her closing statements by saying that it was the scariest thing she had ever done and was glad to share it with us. Thanks to all the candidates that participated and to John Fitzpatrick who did an outstanding job moderating the event.
Thanks to all those who attended tonight and participated. I enjoyed hearing the responses from the School Committee candidates. There were some tough questions asked and I think some thoughtful answers provided. It seems we can gather in one room and be polite and civil after all.
To our anonymous commenter in the parking lot, Written statements from three candidates were read at the outset. Ms. Britto, Ms. Moniz and myself came forward as candidates to meet with the public. We made opening statements, responded to questions and talked with people afterward. It was a nice evening. See you at teh Candidate forum on the 27th, Town Hall room 304, 7PM.
I'd like to thank the candidates for participating. I'd also like to thank John Fitzpatrick for the wonderful job he did moderating tonight.
BillT had the crowd laughing when he derides the park director for laying off people? Did I read that right?
Sorry I missed the fun!
Sorry anonymous, you can't ruin this one. It was a great event.
zwj - not trying to ruin anything, I'm glad the event was a success. Just find no humor in people losing their jobs.
to anonymous, the comment made re: park dept. was to make the point...you don't layoff the workers and keep the bosses. This is an example of the lack of leadership in Dartmouth at the present time.
nd mom - I guess I missed the point and still miss the humorous part, maybe you had to be there.
But if that was the point I do not agree with it. If there is no 'boss' who leads the workers? Are we to believe they will do the work, schedule the work, establish priorities for the work, present budgets and timelines for the work, etc.? Does'nt every compnay, let alone one with a budget over $60,000,000 have 'bosses'? Or am I missing something here too?
We have a well run recreation department. The parks are clean, the beaches are clean the director responsible - yet he gets slammed because he does not fire himself to meet his budget? Instead he is forced to cut staff to live within his budget and he's cited for a lack of leadership? You guys are something else.
Let's say he does lay himself off-what then? Who will you blame when things are not happening in the recreation department?
The comment Mr. Trimble made seemed to have more to do with making hard choices than a slam against any park employees. I happen to agree that we have to make hard, unpopular choices right now in order to get things back on track financially in Dartmouth. I guess one had to be there, but instead some chose to stay away and misconstrue from the sidelines.
Why not try consolidating departments? If you keep the director, who is going to do the work? Lets lay off all the DPW workers and just keep administration. I bet those guys will be out there picking up the trash. How about when the department's budget is only 220,000 and the boss eats up 80,000 of it in salary & benefits?
That's just my point common sense. At some point the budget gets to a point that simply makes no sense for a town of 64 square miles and 30+k people and must be adjusted upwards. 1 administrator with no staff makes as much sense as no administrator with a bunch of employees - it does'nt.
Let's leave the recreation department for a moment and take the library, should/when the override fail the library will have 2 employees the director and one staff person. How does a library run for a town this size with a total of 2 people? The answer is that it won't for very long so that is our choice. If no one on the cfrg or BillT recognizes that at some point inflation running greater than 2 1/2% will force these choices then the choices will be to close departments. The discussion should be broadened beyond simply eliminate this or that to keep costs low it should be about what we value as a community and are we willing to pay for it. It should also include a discussion that talks about the why cfrg and BillT will not tell us what makes this community so broke. There is no proof that this is the case.
The seriousness of the situation makes the joking about it difficult to stomach, but maybe I have a weak stomach.
I have to agree about having a weak stomach. Some of our town's practices have made me ill as well. No matter how you try to mask it, the truth is the voters are tired of the bull. Our leaders are running around in a frenzied effort to protect themselves. I don't see the concern for small businesses, seniors, people out of work, or the workers who will be layed off. What I do see is an effort to get an override that doesn't make sense passed and administration sacrificing the people doing the real work so they can keep their fat salaries & benefits. I also see a school system sacrificing things like textbooks, teachers, & learning materials so administration can stay fat & well fed. And I guarantee you there are many more who are seeing it the same way including town workers.
Privatize, consolidate....there are many ways to work through these trying times. Some are not willing to take their blinders off.
Only my opinion, why not put parks/rec under DPW ? They do that in other towns. Also,I heard Shanon J.(fin.com) talk about privatization of the library the other day. We need to think outside the box! But what kind of leadership lays off the workers and keeps the bosses to run the show???? Not good leadership there!
I do not find anything funny about the fiscal situation Dartmouth faces.
I do not take it lightly when people have to lose their jobs. I have been on the layoff side of that equation and it is not a happy matter.
In this instance we were discussing consolidation of departments and making sure that we focused on delivery of services. I said I did not find it surprising that when faced with reductions in "a" department, the supervisor would choose to lay off the only two non seasonal workers in the department and retain his position. I then said that we need to not look at the structure of our town as it exists now. We cannot afford to continue the same way. So, in order to maintain the workers who provide the services, we need to look at consolidating departments within others and reducing the number of supervisors as a way to reduce costs and maintain services.
Well BillT, Barry should have checked the script then, the description above talks about you really having them laughing....perhaps I misunderstood the description here too, seems I misunderstand a lot of what gets written on this blog and published in the newspaper.
Maybe it is me.
to anonymous
Yes, it's you.
damn, I was hoping that was'nt the case.
I'm sorry anonymous threw in the towel so early.
BillT - you're continually saying we can't afford to continue the way we are going and yet we've managed for many years to do just that.
We can debate about how to re-invent government under the assumption that the re-invention will provide adequate services for less cost forever. I'm all for ferreting out waste and mismangement where it can be found. For me, the big picture here is important and that is for a few hundred more dollars (still pretty cheap) the major issues go away or save the few hunderd extra dollars in the short run and turn the government upside down and hope and pray we end up with something better all the while hoping we don't fall into receivership while we 'experiment' with renventing the wheel. What's to stop everyone from continuing to push for reforms while the good parts of our government continue to operate? I happen to believe the bulk of our town departments run well and provide good services for reasonable prices. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater?
anonymous, you assume that a few hundred dollars is nothing. To some people it's a lot. I recall Shannon Jenkins at the split tax hearing saying that a reduction of $200.00 for the elderly would be a substantial savings to them. And she was right. For some people a few hundred dollars means getting the medication they need or paying a heating bill. I am happy that you can easily afford an increase in taxes but there are those who are not so fortunate. Do we throw them out with the bath water?
Anonymous,
I will take your points in order.
First, new growth in Dartmouth has added to our real rate of revenue growth. That real rate of growth (2-1/2% + new growth) has been above the state average for the past 10 years.That has allowed us to increase our rate of expense growth until the rate of revenue growth declined due to economic conditions and other factors. That is how we managed for many years despite Prop 2-1/2.
Next, I believe that the changes we are facing must be made, whether or not any override questions succeed because of the differential between the rates of growth of cost and revenue.
My standard is not waste or mismanagement but simply whether or not we can afford to continue the same spending. It is not a matter of a few hundred dollars and this all goes away. Unless we tackle the root cause, a few hundred dollars more just postpones the crisis for a short time. I am not opposed to any override. I am advocating for prioritizing services (spending) so that we can make choices on those programs which must inevitably be cut. I agree that many of our town departments provide quality service at reasonable cost. The problem is that we cannot afford to continue those services now with reduced new growth, state aid falling, and the economy in recession. The town has shown little willingness to increase revenue via overrides. So even if the questions pass this year, future override requests are not likely to be well received in my opinion. That leaves cost reduction as the only alternative. What do you think? Can we raise revenue to sustain us in the long run and what will that cost, or must we cut services to a sustainable level?
BillT - economic slow downs do not last forever and will likely add considerable time to the sustainiblity of the current override in upcoming years. Other initiatives that erquire prodding on the state level include meals and hotel taxes which would significantly increase revenues for Dartmouth providing the state does not spread the revenue out thru some arcane formula they're good at formulating. With a better economy comes increased new growth, an increase in excise tax which has been horrible of late. So being the glass is half full kind of person I am, I believe a small increase in our low tax rate combined with an economic turn around plus continued pressure on our state and federal government will likely pay great dividends without having to resort to the draconian measures that are advocated here. These measures will in fact do considerable harm to our town and as many are fond of saying here will only kick the can down the road a bit.
oops hit the return key too soon. I think you can cut services only so far before this town becomes one that I and others (I know they exist) will not choose to live in. Those of us with the desire to have libraries, good school, plice, fire, dpw, services for the elders and the willingness to pay a fair price for those services will move on to communities that have those things. I am prepared for the onslaught of people to say well then move out. All well and good, what happens when a sufficient number of us make that decision and leave behind less valuable houses purchased by those with less means? Services will continue to erode and taxes will continue to rise to be paid by those least equipped to pay for them. Not such an optimisitc scenario from this glass is half full person but possible none the less.
There gets to be a tipping point at which this community is no longer that attractive. When do we get to that tipping point? I guess it depends on whom you ask. For some the tipping point is close at hand.
To be brutally honest anonymous, a few hundred dollars a year is not that much money. My parents, on fixed incomes and by no means wealthy (Blue collar dad, housekeeper/waitress mom)will manage with a few hundred dollar increase - in fact being in NY they pay 3x what I pay here in Dartmouth and they manage just fine.
For the truly poor there are exemptions, for others sacrifices will need to be made. 2 or 3 hundred dollars per year, particularly when you know the money is not being wasted, is a small price to pay. Everything in life costs more, from gasoline to insurance to the price of food and we manage to pay it. Why should taxes be any different? And why should a town base it's standard of living on the poorest among us? We are not asking for Cadillac level services here.
I guess what's most frustrating for me is the notion that BillT or the cfrg will not even acknowledge there is another, equally valid side to this discussion. Just theirs. Not sure what to make of that level of lack of compromise ability-heck its not even to the level of discussing compromises. Its just the same 'we can't afford it so it must get reduced or cut or done my way'
You said it! And, why isn't any concern shown for putting our bond rating at risk?
just as an aside (and yes the bond rating needs to be considered given that Moodys has given Dartmouth a Negative Outlook rating for the first time in my memory and notes it is awaiting the results of the override)I have taken notice that in the saturday real estate insert for the past 2 weeks there have been ZERO real estate transactions reported in Dartmouth. No other town or city shares this distinction. May mean nothing, could be a fluke of timing not enough data to make a conclusion, but worth watching.
I am not just saying that we cannot continue as before in order to save a few dollars in taxes but because our spending is not sustainable over time. This is the reality that we face. The town has spent its reserves and the economy is entering a recession. The voters have not shown a willingness to boost revenues and now we face bad economic times which will further reduce our revenue. Taxes are different from other spending because they require the consent of the governed to raise them. Even demand for everyday goods and services is not fixed but elastic. We may elect to go into an HMO or take a higher deductible on our insurance. Why? We don't eat steak every day, why not? You are willing to pay more taxes. OK, if the majority agree, taxes will be raised. But that still leaves us in an unsustainable position because costs are rising faster than revenue. The $5.6 million dollars in override questions get us two or three years at this level. Then what? What is the other equally valid option, overrides again and again? Do you think that is likely to pass muster in the ballot box? You are willing to raise your taxes to meet your needs, will most taxpayers go along with that? That is the question you need to ask.
Yes BillT I am willing to raise my taxes a reasonable amount to support what I consider a reasonable level of service. Would I do it again and again as you suggest? Not likely if there are no sustantive reasons for it. In this case we've had a catastophic injury to a police officer that must be addressed which you will agree severly impacted the budget. We had a huge increase in the GNRVTHS assessment - 277% in the span of a couple years, elimination of state aid in transportation and road repair funds since 2003 and other things that have negatively impated the Town's budget.
We may well be going into a recession but they never last forever and it will pass as said before helpping to bolster the tax base - no? When excise tax revenues increase - that will help - no? Continued lobbying to the state for implementation of sensible reforms will have some effect - no?
The other piece which you may or may not play a role in,I honestly can't tell from this blog alone, is the constant innuendo of mismanagement and wrong doing that has become the way of the cfrg.
Last years o'ride vote demonstrates that almost half of the town's voters were willing to increase their taxes a bit, especially when combined with a switch to a split tax rate. Now, given the rhetoric brought by the cfrg, I'm not sure those same people will vote the same way. So I think damage will be done come April 1 that's going to take a long time to heal if it can be healed at all. Vast areas of Dartmouth could become indistiguishable from our neighbors to the east, New Bedford with a lower quality of life, increasing crime (alerady happening - 19% increase in calls this year from last and 17% increase in felony calls)lower quality of education, and middle class flight to name a few of the possible repurcussions from this upcoming vote. Receivership a distant possibility should not be ignored either.
Doom and gloom? Maybe,but an awfully big gamble for a few hundred dollars.
It's not about $200 in taxes. It's about making changes in this town so that we don't see override after override. Even if we pass all questions this time around....we need to change the way we conduct business in this town. And I mean business! I know that there are some who say the town should not be run like a business.... My home isn't a business either, but I run it like one! Priorities, cuts, etc. I can certainly afford $200, but I know many (esp. seniors) who tell me they cannot. This whole town must tighten the belt together and make the needed changes or it will be back to the well in two or three years!
I often wonder if the override had passed last August....would the town leaders be trying to change things right now or would it be business as usual??
nd mom- this town in my opinion is already pretty inexpensive to live in. Still no documentation that I am aware of that illustrates how 'poor' we are. Still very little in the way of docmented mismanagement. And still no recognition that other factors, like an improving economy will help our situation without resorting to override after override. No recognition that the unusual factors cited above helped put us in the position of asking for an increase in taxes. Just more of the same anecdotal stories of 'we can't afford it'. I'm sorry I've got to disagree with you and BillT on this one.
One comment on our bond rating---The unfunded liability we have with the Bristol County Retirement system has been mandated to be brought up to proper funding. Does anyone know how much we owe on this? This is an important issue that needs to be addressed and it does affect our bond rating. I have not "hearrrrrd" anything about addressing this in our excellent, comprehensive plan. I did hear it being addressed at a budget and revenue task force meeting when one member's comment was "just don't pay it, what are they going to do us if we don't?" SCARY!!!
The pension issue will be hitting every community in Massachusetts before long. They apparently have requested that each community bring their pensions up to minimum funding levels. Dartmouth is not alone in this situation. The FinCom meetings that I have attended noted this will be mandated so it will become yet another large cost that will no doubt eat at many communities tax bases. I do not believe the Comonwealth has come up with the amount of funding the will require so I believe this is one reason the actual number has not been calculated as yet.
Thanks Anonymous, I for one, think this issue needs to come to the forefront. It is important to know going into the upcoming contract negotiations. For clarification, I was under the impression that level funding has already been mandated with a deadline of 2013. Can you comment? I've got to get back to work. Will check in later.
Anonymous - I like your positive attitude, and agree to some extent that some things will turn around. Certainly excise tax, which is a big player for us, will eventually rise again. However, the unusual rise in new growth we have had cannot return, we are running out of places to put significant things. In addition our infrastructure is already being strained, including our sewer system. What reserve we have had may all be used up with the Lincoln Park project. We would have to spend significant money to accommodate new growth as we have had, if we had places to put it.
I submit to you that our expenses have risen about 7% per year. The goal is to try and lower that to 5%, which some of the involved people feel is not possible with the current structure. Even if it were, the expected revenue growth is projected to only be in the 4% range, with 2.5% of that coming from prop 2.5. So even if they hit the expense target of 5%, we will still be short, and that 1% difference will be of a number that gets larger each year, so the dollars represented by that 1% will continue to get larger.
If we can't hit the 5% goal then the difference is 3%, again with the absolute dollars getting larger each and every year. This is why many folks are advocating for structural change to get the rate of change in balance. If that were true then 1 override to get us back to ground zero and close the fixed gap amount would work. Otherwise, with the current plan larger and larger overrides would be necessary to keep pace. A plan that continues to spend more money that we take in is not a plan at all, and that is what needs fixing.
frankg - do you recall if a $$ number has ever been attached to the meals/hotel tax initiative that is stalled in Boston - I recall $1-1.2 million given Dartmouth's umber of resitaurants and motels. If it is near that number are we not looking at close to 1 1/2% per year?
Thats the kind of thing that we need to pursue as well as 'tightening our belts' I just don't think it all should be on the reduction side of the equation when there are other alternatives.
Anonymous - You have a good memory. I just looked through my BRTF notes and a 2% meal tax would get us about $1.05M, and a 1% increase in the hotel tax would get us about $40K.
I again agree with you, that we need to look at both sides of the equation, but remember that any revenue stream has to be able to "keep up" with the rate of increase of expenses, otherwise it becomes a just a zero adjustment for a given year. I don't know what a reasonable expectation is for the growth of those items but I would assume it would plateau at some point, it has to.
The other problem is of course that Quinn told us that the likelihood of those things happening is very, very small. There are too many communities that would have to approve it that wouldn't benefit from it. If the State implemented something globally across the State, as Quinn mentioned, you can be sure that we wouldn't get the full bang from our contribution to that tax.
I agree that we need to pursue all avenues of revenue increases, and the BRTF spent a lot of time looking for things. We couldn't find enough things that would close the gap, even if they were implemented, hence our recommendation that restructuring was indeed necessary. Believe me when I tell you that we dug at everything, and ultimately came to the conclusion that expenses were at least 3% high to be able to match our expected sustainable revenue. We even had ideas passed to us such as turning the Village into a mini-Newport to increase tourism, but that was never followed-up on once it left our committee. If everyone got very creative we could probably find 1% to 1.5% in revenue, maybe, but that first 2% reduction in expenses is the big problem at the moment.
Since we are now so close to a real "hard place" I think we need to pursue the restructuring of the Town to affect expenses as much as possible. As new revenue streams become reality they can be put to good use, and not restoring things that become self-inflicted budget busters. If the Town were in better shape they could fund the schools better, which is the real problem there, and why the schools need to ask for their own override.
Even the glimpse I got of the preliminary benchmarking report at their presentation said that our expenses were above the "norm" compared to our peers. I remember that number as being about 2%. Every community is struggling but we are struggling more. There is a lot of evidence that our expenses need tending to, even if it just gets us to a place where we can fight the normal struggle and not the extraordinary struggle.
Don't count chickens. Even if the meal tax is enacted, they will probably have to do some kind of distribution formula to get it to pass. You saw how much chapter 70 money we got with the recent 4.4% increase. If you're hoping for $1.1million, plan on $250k.
I know Wally and frankg - that's why when Rep Quinn talked about a 'formula' for distribution across the commonwealth for any meals/hotel tax that might ge enacted we would be in for trouble. The 'formulas' rarely have anything to do with fairness but thats a story for another blog.
So we don't know what the unfunded liability is for the pension fund. Do we at least have a clue? Is it $20k? Is it $2m? Is it $10m? My fear is that this override which is supposed to be good for three years, won't be. I have this vision of an episode of the Mike and Ed show next year. It goes something like this. "The pension fund mandate is a budget-buster." "We didn't see it coming(even though Ed is on the BCRS board.)" "It's the state's fault for mandating that we properly fund our own pensions." And when asked if the retirement benefit package was changed to a defined contribution plan for new employees during the fy09 contract negotiations? Well, you can guess the answer to that one.
Here's an idea. We put numbers on the wall at a select board meeting from $100k to $10 million in increments of $100k. Then we take a volunteer from the audience, blindfold them, and spin them around until they are slightly dizzy. At this point they can play pin the tail on the pension liability. Whatever number they pin the tail on can then be inserted into "the plan." Sounds crazy but its better than what we're doing now.
Just becasue an anonymous blogger does not know the answer does not mean the answer does not exist. Why not ask at Monday Select Board Meeting instead of building the drama?
Anonynous, I agree that an answer probably does exist. I asked this very question of the finance director last night at the fincom meeting. He spoke quickly and was on his way out so I can't really give a clear answer to the question. He did offer to go over it with me and I will take him up on it. One thing he did say last night was that he was more concerned with the school side pension than the town side. I'm worried about both. His concern with the school side was that the state has been cutting into chapter 70 funds to make sure the state pension fund is solvent. One opinion that I am starting to form is that when people say that the pension funds are completely funded by the employees, they are mistaken. The ramifications of defined benefit pensions to the taxpayer could very well be significant.
Post a Comment