Some recent comments have observed that the a la carte menu for the current override questions can lead to some pretty weird outcomes. For instance, if the school question passes and the general government question fails, the school department will be hiring 20 or so employees, while the town side is forced to lay of an estimated 34. Another example is if the library question passes and the general government question fails, the library is still short of the required funding and may lose ceritfication even though the question for the library passed. My wife and I have been sort of kicking around scenarios to see who can come up with the weirdest. Hey, it's just the two of us and the cat now that the kids are grown. You'll be here someday too.
As I have said in previous posts, I am not a fan of this approach. I would rather have seen a single override question that allowed the town and schools to be funded at level services for enough time to effect change. But it is what it is. The town has published a guide for the override questions on their website according to our Executive Administrator and Budget Director at tonight's Select Board meeting. Darned if I could find it though. If you come across it, please let me know the URL so I can link to it.
Update
The override information link scrolls across the main page and you click on it. Or you can go there directly by clicking here
I didn't look closely enough last night I suppose but thanks to reader Matt for getting me the link.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Weird outcomes
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
46 comments:
Bill, This post is a good example of your forward thinking, something we could use a little more of at town hall.
Interesting BillT that your kids have grown and presumably benefitted from Dartmouth's school system yet you begrudge the current crop of kids having the same benefits.
The a la carte menu decision was wrong from day one so I can agree with you on that. It has driven this town in 7 directions which is too bad. For that we can thank the pressure of the CFRG and Diane Gilbert, an unapologetic proponent of the a la carte approach.
What a shame all around.
$8.7 MILLION, FOLKS,
A quote from today's S-Times says,the seven questions seek a total of $8.7 MILLION DOLLARS,& will cost the median home (value of $326) $298 a year according to Iacaponi.
This sounds just like last summer!!
Plus they're charging PAY-T and they turned off the lights!
What has been done in town for the last 8 months!! NOTHING.
All talk, looking into this & that...
NOTHING HAS CHANGED!
Kim you like to shout a lot. You fail to note in your most recent rant that of that amount, some $3+ million is for a debt exclusion for capital improvements. An amount that will fall off the tax roles once the debt is repaid. The previous year's override did not have such an exclusion, but you knew that did'nt you.
So in fact the override request this year is less than last year by some $3+m. Please give the voters a little more credit than that.
With the implementation of the split tax rate (the selcet board followed trough on their promise) the same $326k home saved roughly $150 so the net increase is in the neighborhood of $148 - oh and its tax deductable too so the real extra cost if you vote yes to each item is around $135 or $33.75/quarter for that same house. Seems like a bargain to me to preserve what is left of the town I love so I'll be voting yes on each item!
anonymous, I am not ranting, just quoting from Curt Brown's S-Times article.
In reality, the town hasn't done enough in 8 months to show any dollar amount, so it's back to the taxpayers!
Sorry, but the failed leadership in town is very obvious!
Anonymous, You forgot to add the $1.8million from PAYT. Add that to the picture and the request is only about $1.2 million less than the last one. $.5 million of that would be the senior exemption that they forgot to include this time around. Yes, that's right people, the HUD guidelines for senior property tax exemptions were eliminated from the proposal this time. In order for seniors to qualify, the guidelines are back to the extreme poverty level.
No Henry did not forget the PAYT program. Had the O'ride passed last year we would not be dealing with the PAYT this year-oh well.
Why would it not be appropriate to use the HUD guidleines to determine exemptions? Seems a logical formula since it's used for other entitlement programs.
As much as people like to say nothing has changed, they are wrong as there have been many changes made and pending.
Please provide more detail on the changes made or pending. What are they and what amounts have they saved?
So the total amount (override and debt exclusion) equals last year's total amount, and yet we do not get PAYT abolished. Something stinks here. Why wouldn't we include trash pickup if it is the same amount of money?
It's not the same amount, read the post above.
PAYT now pays for the trash pick up so it is self-sustaining, it allowed the trash crews to stay hirede as opposed to being let go last year to meet the deficit.
Just in the interest of accuracy, only 10% of the Debt Exclusion should go into the total, unlike the way Curt Brown expressed it. If Ed's estimate of the DE being $360K per year is accurate then the total for this year is $5,900,470.
Ed's off-the-cuff tax increase estimates were a little off too. For the median home (not medium Ed) of $326K the increase would be $308 for everything. For the average home, $420K, it is $396.
For the split-rate savings, the numbers are $164 for the median, and $211 for the average.
Yes, I am also interested in CHANGES with DOLLAR amounts next to them. No, I don't want to hear about your empowered personnel board!!
In 8 months, what have you done???
Show me the money!!
Anonymous said "Why would it not be appropriate to use the HUD guidleines to determine exemptions? Seems a logical formula since it's used for other entitlement programs? As much as people like to say nothing has changed, they are wrong" This is a
good question but people are not wrong when they say nothing has changed about the senior exemption. It REMAINS at extreme poverty level.
agreed UKU.
Shouting again Kim?
Kim, If you watched SB mtgs. read the more informative editorials, email your leadership with a specific question (not a rant), and generally got a little informed you would be able to see what has been done in the last 8 months. The cuts and efficiencies began across the board 6 YEARS ago. To a degree, you are correct- nothing has changed. WE STILL NEED THE MONEY... By all means lobby to ditch PAYT after the override. Also, when throwing around numbers don't forget your property tax went down signifigantly this year. Last time I checked , a $420,000 house in Dartmouth was well above average.
Bill, What say you. Did your kids benefit from a Dartmouth education? If so, you should be ashamed to propose the changes you do. You were not asked to do it when your family enjoyed all this town has to offer. Why should we? Aslo, I hope you are telling those Dartmouth kids you are so proud of coaching Lacrosse to that there town is about to let them down.
Barry was so unimpressed with last year's revised tax abatement for seniors that would have tripled those eligible. What did he advocate for this time around? Nothing!
Supporting override again this year. As anticipated, at a cost increase to what was proposed in July. BW/CFRG/Bill T. ain't got no cure, folks! Just a lot of misplaced mistrust to spread around - the illusion makers.
So now it is Barry's fault that the select board did not make the changes to the senior exemption? Talk about twisted logic. Anonymous must be one of the five select board members trying to avoid accountability. It is the select board that puts the override package together and they are the ones responsible.
Yes, so interesting!! The people who should be responsible (our leaders) have not been. Look at Acushnet, in the S-Times today, they have had ABC picking up their garbage and they have been saving money, but now their leaders are going with still another company so they can save even more money for their taxpayers.
If Dartmouth had gone to a private company for garbage, the DPW would keep their jobs and the town would have saved money. Really, how much snow fell this winter? We would still find people to plow. Heck, the school dept. even has plows they never use!
Voting soon - Dartmouth pays about the lowest tipping fee in the region for trash disposal due in no small part to their collaboration with the city of New Bedford in the management of the Crapo Hill Landfill. The current reduction in the amount of trash going to the landfill will allow Dartmouth many mores year's capacity at the landfill before we have to look eleswhere and pay significantly more to dispose of our trash. Believe it or not we are doing better than Acushnet in the area of solid waste disposal.
Can't believe people here still ask to be provided with details on changes made and pending.
Frank G, Thank you. Ed I. gave misinformation to the voters...A median home $326 would equal a tax increase of $308.
Average home $420 would equal a $396
tax increase.
I wondered about his numbers last night when I watched the SB meeting.
Talk about misleading the voters!
ND Mom - what did Ed I say that was so 'mis-leading' these numbers have been printed in hard copy form and distributed for quite some time. To say Ed I purposely is giving out 'mis-information' when his comments as frnkg said were 'off the cuff' is pretty mean spirited in my opinon.
The debt exclusion numbers are at best 'guestimates' at this point anyway so will likely shift as projects are bid out and actual prices come in. We will get nowhere if the constant 'gotch' techniques are used to willfully discredit people whether its against Barry or someone from the town side.
One last thought on the trash issue brought up above. Acuhsnet must send their trash to the semass facility in Rochester. They average 350-400 tons per month to have it removed at a cost of roughly $300,000/year. Their contract with semass expires in 2013 (+-) at whihc point they will be paying the going rate of between $75-$100/ton. Dartmouth's costs for trash disposal is now roughly $14/ton and the Crapo Hill facility is good till 2030 perhaps longer if people recycle more and throw out less. Dartmouth is pretty darn good in the trash removal business.
Where'd Trashman go? Is he still looking for the missing 25 tons of trash from an earlier trash related blog?
Nope, no longer looking for that elusive trash. Now I want to know if the town has forgotten that they got $1.8 with PAYT last summer. So their $5.5 this year is really $7.3. Not much different from the last override. I'd also like to know how they will justify only having 7 DPW workers while keeping 4 engineers if question 5 doesn't pass. How many engineers does it take to inspect the work of 7 men?
Will you show your affection for the community and citizens? perhaps you'll have a change of reasoning and sentiment and voice YES for all questions this Thursday?
The article in today's paper was not about tipping fees, which is what we are talking about at SEMass and Crapo Hill, but collection and hauling fees. Acushnet had been using ABC and another hauler is Howland Disposal has underbid them. This is an example of competitive pressures leading to lower costs. Competitive bidding for services can and does allow towns to cut or reduce increases in costs. The bidders know that if they don't really sharpen the pencil, they may lose out.
The link to the Acushnet article is here THe finger is faster than the brain sometimes :^)
I have read the messages from people finding it ironic about your anti-school and anti-library funding stands, yet it is a priority for you to teach children Lacrosse to enhance their well-bing and well-rounded nature? Lacrosse has historically been associated with cutting edge school districts with substantial if not adequate education funding. Can you explain your problem with school funding and library funding or clarify something so we understand why you seem to partially value education, literacy, youth? Confused.
It would be interesting to compare apples to apples at Candidates' Night. Two Select Board Candidates who will support and vote yes, embracing town-wide departmental funding, but differ on leadership styles. Hm.
Comparing apples to apples would mean getting more of the same and frankly I've had enough of the same. Leadership styles, especially in this case, are very important but we also have a crisis at hand. I want someone who will listen to all sides not just those who agree with them. There is a large segment of this town that is being ignored. Everyone should have a voice. This includes the schools, the town side, and the taxpayers.
momof4 - I don't think Ed was deliberately trying to mislead, even though they all try to soft-peddle the impact. He was using the same chart that has been published, with breakdowns for every $100K of worth so he had to extrapolate on his feet.
The only problem I have is that it seems logical to me that someone would ask the question about the median and the average home, so I certainly would have had those numbers at-the-ready instead of having to do math under pressure. I also would have included those on the published document.
The first sheet that was published on the web was also wrong, all the numbers were low. Since I had already created a tax calculator I checked all the numbers then sent off a message to Ed and Mike asking them to please fix things. They did, and again I don't think there was any bad intent, but to me it is sloppy to publish or present numbers that aren't correct. Transparency should never be translucent.
I believe in giving the taxpayers the correct info so they can make the best decisions, and shouldn't have to work with someone's guess or miscalculation. It is no harder to give the right number than to give a wrong one.
Thanks for the clarification on the hauling cost vs. tipping fees. It can't hurt however to remind people that good planning on the part of the town and the New Bedford side of the Crapo landfill has put Dartmouth in a very enviable position regarding the cost of trash disposal. The Crapo Hill landfill is an excellant example of professional planning on the part of the Town in cooperation with the City of New Bedford. Many suroudning towns would love to be in Dartmouth's position.
As far as privatizing trash hauling, is'nt the privatization task force working on that very issue at this time?
In reference to current leadership, this diverse Board listens to different opinions and they were not welcoming or eager for an override (outside people made the case)...The override was a long, arduous process with input from many dimensions, fact factors. They don't support all education, library or town service variables...they are independently analytical, but support need for more revenue or receivership and a cessation in public services.
The SB should have taken a leadership role. Observing our current economy and the lack of support for overrides in Dartmouth, one would think the SB would have taken this into consideration before placing the questions on the ballot. If the general government question was top priority in keeping the town running, then the only question on the ballot should have been for $1.5 which I believe would have been sufferable to the voters.
An RFP for bids on trash and recycling went out last week.
Just as an FYI please note that if we manage to save some money on that axis, it doesn't help the General Gov because of the Enterprise Fund that was created. Any savings should help the taxpayer with the fees though.
to bad decisions-you say there is no support for an override. That is simply not true. Last years, larger override passed with a slim margin of 230 (+-) votes out of some 11,000 votes. That tells me almost 1/2 of the voters supported last years effort. Hardly no support at all as you say.
Thank you frankg on the rfp for trash pick up. So the town has been moving forward on this after all-good to know.
oops, meant to say override failed, not passed.
Wishfull thinking on my part I suppose.
Good luck Bill, don't know why you would want it, but good luck.
Since overrides have failed in the past I would say there is a lack of support for overrides. I don't know what else you would call it.
The past does not dictate the present or the future. We have control, we are in this decision making together, based on the current here and now and presentation of the entire scenario. Funding or closings, receivership eventually. This site claims fairness, but this is pretty one sided-just no and no some more despite the whole truth.
I think this site has been fair. All sides have been represented and there have been many views posted. Do you think it's unfair because everyone is not agreeing with you?
I'm sorry I can't have the flip attitude about weird outcomes. I'm still raising my kids, and have to rely on the majority of voters who aren't to support the schools. Apparently, when the last kid graduates, the importance of public school education goes with them. I find it very sad.
I agree with you momof3. It is sad that this community places so little value on education. Mr Trimbles children have benefitted from a quality Dartmouth education. With his children grown and out of the system, we can no longer afford the same system or anything close to it according to Mr Trimble. How convenenient. Mr Trimble has also stated on this blog that the community actually benefits when more people send their children to private schools. Saves hime a little more money I suppose. But I forget, as a Selectman, Mr Trimble will not play much of a role in school decisions. Like selectmen from the past he can sit back, separate from the school committee and not trouble himself with school issues. Probably just as well, he'll have his hands full 'fixing' all past wrongs with no money.
How have you compromised in regard to education funding?
Post a Comment