The op ed letter in today's Standard Times from Mr Araujo was pretty typical of the sentiments I have heard in support of this year's override questions. While it is long on scorn for those who oppose the override questions, I find it short on sensible plans for returning Dartmouth to fiscal health.
I have posted about what I believe the problem is here. In a nutshell, our spending is growing faster than our revenue can grow. An override can raise the rate of growth of revenue for one year and then it is back to the same rate at a higher dollar amount. I have yet to see an argument from those who support an override that addresses this underlying problem. Even if some or all of the override questions pass this year, Dartmouth is going to have to aggressively cut costs all across the board. I don't know anyone who has looked at the numbers who disagrees with that contention. The Finance Committee estimates that the shortfall in budgets over the next five years is around $18 million dollars if all the departments remain at level services and the schools are kept at minimum net school spending(MNSS). I think that the proposed override questions add expense on top of those expenses which we could not sustain before. In a previous post, I have advocated the approach here that we maintain level services and MNSS until we can sort out how to proceed. By some estimates that would require a $3.5 million override. Whether that option will get a trial is still up in the air pending the April override question results and my own candidacy for Select Board. Whatever the outcome of the override questions, I am sure that most citizens will put their shoulder to the wheel and help to get us back on track. Many on both sides of the questions are doing that now even though they disagree. My point is that on April 2nd, come what may, we will still have lots of work to do. There are good people on both sides and plenty of common ground to find a basis for community action after the vote. Let's lower the rhetorical heat a bit.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
The long and winding road
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
28 comments:
You encourage new growth as a means of increasing revenue. Have you considered that the average home in Dartmouth brings in $3000 -$3600 in taxes and tyically receives services greatly exceeding this amount? We need progress and real solutions to our current problem.
You quote the FinCom as saying we face an $18 million deficit over 3 years maintaining level services and mnss yet you oppose an override. You state in the very next sentence that we should maintain level services and mnss until we have sorted out our financial mess. How do we maintain level services and mnss with decreased revenue each year? What are some tangible steps to maintain services in our current situation?
Please pay attention! Mr. Trimble has said in his interview(U-Tube) that the town does need an override to get through this crisis. He may not agree on every question, but he does have a grasp of the problems facing our town!
The question to maintain level services is an important one! On April 2nd, the town must begin making some difficult changes, not start getting ready for the next override!
So far all I hear from the current leadership is, "we're looking into that", "we're looking into this", "we have a committee to look into that", "we've EMPOWERED this group".
What I don't see is a dollar amount savings for six months work.
Mr. Timble didn't refute the two factual points Mr. Araujo brought up. Nor does Mr. Timble have a plan to reopen the Gidley and Cushman scools this fall. Not everyone wants the lowest tax rate possible. We can open these schools this fall and still have a tax rate well below the state average. I must conclude that Mr. Timble puts a higher priority on maintaining our extremely low tax rate than opening these schools as fast as possible. I respectfully disagree with that.
After reading Rep. Quinn's letter in the ST today, it would seem he doesn't feel as though anything has been done either. I wonder if he is just a trouble maker with his own agenda too.
curious: Please be fair! Rep. Quin also brought up the fact that the people of the town haven't seen fit to pass an override. Why did you not mention that? The town should be looking for savings and our tax rate should go up. If we squeeze this problem from both sides, we can get it done!
anonymous, in all fairness, why would taxpayers give more money when the town still has not addressed the issues Rep. Quinn spoke of? They have had 7 months since the last override and months/yrs. before that. We all know that they knew about this problem long before the last override attempt. So how long do we wait? I don't want to hear promises that if we pass the overrides, then they'll do it. Past performance has not indicated a reason to have faith in that hope. And please don't throw in the split tax rate. Whatever savings were gained by the split rate were devoured by PAYT.
A plan is what Mr. Gagne and Ed Icaponi are and were supposed to be doing all along!
The SB doesn't put forth the plan. The SB only meets every other week for most of the year. They are not the people who put forth the plan!
We PAY people good salaries to do that job!
I have seen no plan in writing on the town website or anywhere for that matter. That was the first recommendation of the DOR so that our town would run more efficiently.
Mr Gagne and Mr. Icaponi work full time! SHOW ME THE PLAN!!!!!
I am running for Select Board. If you want a plan to reopen Cushman talk to Mr Lenz. or one of the others running for School Committee. The situation at Quinn School is one of the school departments own creation. I don't think they came before the Select Board for their opinion when they closed schools and I don't think they will to open them. I have no idea what points Mr Araujo brought up that I have not addressed. If you want to enumerate them, I would be happy to respond. I will put my highest priority on reconciling the rate of growth of expense with the rate of growth of revenue. Once again, I want to point out again that an override is a temporary solution. Passing an override, opening schools, and hiring more people will put us right back in the same situation as today in a few years only with a higher tax rate and more expense. I hope to avoid that.
The choice to close Cushman and Gidley was done to preserve Teaching positions. Having 30+ students per classroom at the elementary level due to lack of funding is unacceptable.
There is no need to enumerate what is already written. A selectperson is a town leader. I don't want a town leader who isn't pushing to get those schools back open ASAP. You seem more interested in keeping our already extremely low taxes as low as possible. That's not my first priority.
The logic escapes me. Please explain how you go from wanting to fix our fiscal problems so we don't need continuous overrides to being "interested in keeping our already extremely low taxes as low as possible? Mr. Trimble has made public his views on an override. He agrees one is needed. The disagreement seems to be on where it is needed, how much it should be and what the existing money is being spent on. We all have a right to decide our own priorities. However in this community it will be the choice of the voters as to what the town's priorities will be. We'll see what decisions Dartmouth makes April 1st!
cramming over 1,000 elementary school students into a building designed for middle school children is also not acceptable. I think we both have a good point here. I'm OK with raising my taxes sufficiently to open both schools and keep all the teachers we need. Are you?
When the school department decides to put 1,00 kids in one school and you find it unacceptable, I think you have to hold them accountable. The taxpayers may or may not provide additional funds, that's what the vote will decide. Regardless of the outcome, it seems to me that you need to be talking to the School Committee about 1,000 kids at Quinn, not the Select Board or the taxpayer. They cannot make the decisions that you are advocating for. Will the School Committee candidates commit to your course regardless of the outcome of the questions? If not, why not?
The school comm. wouldn't have to decide to put 1,000 children in a school if the town had more money. Since our taxes are embarrassingly low, I'm fine with an override that would fund our schools properly. Perhaps I'm wrong, but you don't seem to agree with me. That's fine. I care more about the schools and you care more about keeping taxes low.
Again, an override is a very temporary solution. Read here for why I say that. Read here for what I think needs to be done about that. The schools will get $1.625 million dollars more this year than last year even if the override questions fail. Funding for all other departments will be cut or at level services. I have said that we will need an override to continue to provide adequate services to the town. But I do not support any and all overrides. My test for an override question is that it has to get us closer to reconciling the rates of growth of our expenses and our revenues. If the override question includes spending that cannot be sustained in the long term, I will not support it because it is that lack of forethought and planning that got us in this situation in the first place. The first rule when you find yourself in a hole is, stop digging.
Thanks, Bill. I'm concerned, then, that if we follow your recipe, we will never improve the schools in this town, because that will require more teachers and subsequently more growth, which will lead to a new override that you don't want. But even if our budget grew at 0%, as long as inflation stays above 2.5%, which it historically has, then a new override will always be pending. So inflation alone prevents us from improving our schools or any other town depertment, according to your recipe of trying to preventing the next override. Is that true?
The schools will be getting an automatic increase of $1.6 million even without the override. That is roughly a 4.9% increase.
fyi - you've posted that before without explaining why that number is so significant to you. The increase the school is receiving will be used to maintain the minimum net school spending amount. This is the bare minimum the state says a town should dedicate to educating its children. This amount will just barely maintain current levels of service as the increas in pensions, utilities, sped funding and town charge backs will use that money. If bare minimum funding for education is ok with you vote accordingly. If you think it wise to provide slightly more than bare minimum like I do vote yes. Given the cuts the schools have implemented and the direction many mcas scores are going I'm of the opinion bare minimums do not cut it.
anonymous, Teachers provide for their own pensions through a payroll deduction. The town does not contribute.
The schools must provide society with people who will actively seek to better the world in which they live. The schools, therefore, will lend assistance in bringing about change in the social and political environment of which they are a part. They must not approach change, however, without considering the attitudes of the community which supports them.
Z. Walter Janiak
You're correct BillT - the teachers provide contributions to their own pension not the town,my oversight thanks for the correction.
While the teachers are part of a state retirement plan, that is not so on the town side. The town side is part of a county retirement system. Due to the generous payouts, the county system is very under-funded. Guess who has been mandated to bring that retirement fund back up to proper funding? You guessed it, the taxpayers of dartmouth.
I'll bet Wilbur and Mr. Ed have a truckload of excuses why town workers hired in the future cannot be put on a 401k type retirement plan.
Fundmanager is correct that the taxpayer will be tapped to fund our increased pension program obligations. These costs are increasing in part due to changes in the accounting requirements for those funds. This is one of the reasons I am advocating for carefully examining the future costs of present decisions. One possible way to reduce the impact of these costs is to push the Bristol County Retirement Fund to join the state's fund which has a much better record of return on investment.
The point is that while the town will only get a 2.5% increase, the schools will get a 4.9% increase even without an override. Quit crying.
fyi - are all your insights so profound?
To tired of excuses, One way to eliminate all those excuses you mention would be privitization.
Post a Comment