I don't know how many saw my presentation to the Select Board last night but I noted that the town has a budget shortfall of $818K next year. I asked the Board whether or not they are going to entertain an override. If not or if the override should fail, I asked whether the Board would direct the budget cuts that will be required to specific departments. What are your thoughts on these topics? Should the voters be asked for an override? Should the Select Board decide were the cuts are to fall?
Peace!
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
2010 town budget
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
40 comments:
With the transition that is happening right now (new exec admin) it might be the select board that should direct the department heads on how much to cut. Is that within the duties of the select board?
Here we go again! I don't want another override. Let's do what we need to do so that we don't have to keep going to the voters for overrides every year.
I'm happy that the board is on the right track. Some say Dartmouth isn't a business, but we still have to pay those bills, don't we?
here we go again, anon 12:33 - what part of 'we are not asking for an override this year' is difficult for you to grasp? This utter nonsense of the town asking for overrides every year is so stupid its almost comical.
Bill, I think that if the executive administrator is incapable or unwilling to rectify the budget then the select board should do it for him. Of course it should be the executive administrator's job but since he can't or won't do it, you have made the right decision not to renew his contract. If the select board ends up having to do it, then the pay for executive administrator should be substantially less. I'm not willing to pay someone $119,000 plus generous benefits if they are unable or unwilling to do their job.
Has anyone ever said the exec admin was unwilling or incapable of submitting a reconciled budget? If so I have not heard it. Why start rumours based on heresay information. Has there been a salaryrange established for this position yet?
Bill, would you mind telling us what the "grounds for recall" are for you, Diane, and Joe? I'm assuming YOU know because the rest of us can't see a reason!! Recall someone for doing their job (the right way,) maybe??
The lengths some will go to get their own way is pitiful.
anonymous 1:36. We don't have a reconciled budget so what would your reason be that the exec. admin. hasn't submitted one? Oh, that's right, it's not his job.
Anon - 3:29, as was stated at last night's meeting and at several other SB and FinCom meetings, the Exec Admin and Fin Direc along with the Finance Comm, have identified the shortfall for the coming year and have requested all department heads to submit their budgets with appropriate cuts and to find any savings they might to meet the available monies. They have stated thre will be no overrides, no money will come from the stabilization funds and the budget must be balanced. We will know very soon how many personnel will have to go to offset the projected shortfall. When this is done there are likely to be additional surprises given that the State will certainly make good on their projection that we cannot count on the state aid they stated was available just a few months back.
I know nobody likes to hear it but it takes time to work out the budget, understand all the nuances of pension liabilities, health costs, utility costs combined with ever changing projections on local revenues, state aid and so on. Once that is worked out and agreed upon by all involved (a process that cannot in start in earnest each year until the state distributes its projected aid levels-whihch is always late)the departments are notified what money is available to them - we are at this stage now - and they are asked how they intend to make their department function with the money available. So I'll state again the exec admin has never not been willing or been unable to submit a budget to the town and this is the case this year. We are in mid process and all have said there will be cuts to make the budget work. No big mystery here unless one is looking to make a case for ouster where none exists. Even the SB has not stated this is the reason they are not renewing Gagne's contract - so why do you say differently? Do you know something the rest of us are in the dark about?
Sorry, Bill, posted too soon. It's currently just a generic provision to be able to recall in the future, if it gets passed all the way around. Still, it will be interesting what the excuse will be.
I remember sitting in one of the public meetings about a year ago and heard gagne say that he couldn't do the financial plan because things change too much. It doesn't matter whether he is incapable or unwilling, he said he couldn't do it, and it is his job per the charter.
How about looking at all the TIF agreements . Find a way to suspend the agreements on a temporary basis. Expain the situation to the business community ,hit them up for 1 million . The residents have already given up as much as they can. Find a way to bring to the voters a method to raise taxes on business. Dartmouth in the last twenty years has gone from a residential town to a town that looks like Route 1 heading north out of Boston . Is this what the residents of Dartmouth wanted ? Has the town really gone in the right direction in the past twenty years . I say NO
Frank, you are absolutely delusional. Don't you remember the splot tax rate last year. Who do you think paid more in taxes under that gem of a plan. Not every business got a TIF. Primarily the big boz stores to attract other businesses to the area who do pay taxes. If those businesses were not there,guess what your tax burden would be? Wake up.
anon 5:56 - never heard Gagne say such a thing at any meeting I have attended. He has often said the numbers are fluid as changes are a given in funding amounts and expenditures. Again none of the SB has stated this was the reason for Gagne's non renewal, never not once. The reason given has been the 'new direction', and need for more vision going forward, never that he was unwilling or unable to submit a balanced budget. Fact of the matter is the town must have a balanced budget and we have had one ever since I've lived here. The methods used to achieve that balanced budget have recently been criticized but every year a balanced budget has been formulated and submitted. Let's try and stick to the facts and reality. If Gagne is to go the reasons given by the SB were stated and they do not include an unwillingness or inability to submit a budget.
Frank - the town went in this direction because a majority of residents are not willing to pay the taxes necessary to go in other directions.
Good point on TIF's frank1.
I have just heard about the unfulfilled tif promise that was given to The Cedars.
Apparently, The Cedars has not kept their end of the bargain with the town.
Be interesting to know who was on watch when the pockebook was ripped open!
I wonder if Micheal will follow through with the machinations to put in place a Dartmouth Meals tax as approved by our governor?
Should have been ready at the time of signature.
Mr. Gagne still in charge of street lights? He should have off-loaded that task to the DPW! How many more blinking, defective lights should the residents tolerate? The Town pays the electric service on the lamps even if their defective! Blinking street light cause electromagnet interference, disturbs communication and private radio services...
Further, how long does it take for Town Hall to react to a request for street light installation, even when offered payment? Answer about 7 months and counting!
The meals tax has yet to be enacted by the General Court and will allow local governments to assess an additional sales tax on restaurant meals.
The Town Meeting must grant all TIFs and they have been reluctant to do so in the past few years. I can find no record of a TIF for Cedars coming before the Town Meeting for approval. The Cedars do not currently have a TIF. There are 8 active TIF agreements now in force. Fall River 5 (1%, ends 2009), ZAPP (10%, ends 2009), Harvey Ind phase II(40%, ends 2009), Faunce Corner Exec Park (30% 2009, 5% thru 2014), Dartmouth Building Supply (40% thru 2015), Lowes (5% thru 2014), Target(5% thru 2016), Valois(15% thru 2016), and Commercial Drywall (5% thru 2011, then 1% to 2016)
anon 10:16 - you should have been at the meeting i was at, you would have heard it. The subject matter was a multi-year balanced financial forecast, and he said he couldn't do it because things change too much.
You try to separate moving in a new direction from being able to create a sound plan when there is nothing inconsistent between the two. This is especially obvious to me when I hear that they want more appropriate education and training for the job. You don't need those attributes to scrape dead animals off the road so it seems entirely logical that the new direction is for the financial planning.
I suppose it would be better if they actually stated that clearly but they don't actually need to tell you me or anyone else the point blank details since they are not removing him for cause they are just not renewing his contract. There is a big difference between balancing a budget for 1 year as required by law and having a multi-year financial plan for guidance.
I am sure they are trying to balance getting the job done without defaming gagne if they can. They seem to be trying to preserve as much of his dignity as possible given the circumstances that they feel change is necessary.
Frank, "The residents have already given up as much as they can". Since we are by far the cheapest place to live in the area,I guess all the residents would be homeless if we had to pay the same rate as Portsmouth or Newport or even new bedford. Thank God for people like you frank just a favor--when I have to fix my own pothole because there's noone left can you give me some instructions since you know it all
As I presented to the Select Board on Monday, overrides and increased revenue are futile as a solution to our budgetary crisis. Because our expenditures are growing faster than our revenues, overrides only allow us to get by for a very short time and then another and another are needed. We would rapidly find ourselves as one of the highest taxed communities but would have no more services than we do now. The only long term solution is to reconcile the rate of growth of expense with that of revenue.
cutting expenses is only part of the solution not the only solution.I havent heard anything else. In addition to cutting expenses revenue must increase or in a short time we will have a low tax do it yourself town. library--we have barnes and knoble, sidewalk in front of your house cracks --we have home depot go pick up a bag and fix it.dead animal in front of your house --go get a shovel. fender bender drive to the police station. needan ambulance? hope you live close because its going to be $$$ maybe the neighbor can drive you and only charge you gas. your street light out too bad mine's not. I also agree with anon 2:39 Frank how do you fix a pothole? after the next round of cuts there's few left to do it.
Bill I wish it was as simple as you make it out to be. The solution lies in a combination of decreasing expenditures and increasing revenue whether that is by increased property taxes (ours are in fact low), increased rates of growth (not really something we have control over), pressure on Boston to enact changes to mandates they impose and pressure to get them off the dime to enact enabling legislation to allow locals to put in place a meals/hotel tax (we recently paid a hotel tax of $28/night in Texas and saw it as the cost of doing business) or a combination of any of the above. How can we as a community (or group of communities - even better) ecert the appropriate pressure to make these things happen. Dartmouth does not operate in a vacuume and must look outside our boundaries for solutions. We must also be willing to look at increasin revenue as needed to keep basic services.
To anon 5:56, last try but I suspect it will fall on deaf ears. The SB stated they wanted a new direection. When pressed they said the new direction meant lookin to solve budet shortfalls with new ideas and a more 'visionary' approach. They never, not once, stated ane was unwillin or incapable of submittin a budet. Last year and this year Gagne has directed the dpet heads to meet the monies available. Revisionist history may work well for some but if you've been paying attention you will not be fooled by propaganda.
anon 4:01 - My ears work fine. I have already told you, twice, I heard the man say he couldn't do what was expected of him but you refuse to believe it because it doesn't fit your conspiracy theory.
You would rather throw stones at those that are actually trying to help the town and not add up the clear evidence in front of you. The way you add things up you could do gagne's job but that wouldn't get us anywhere either.
I am glad that was your last try because your comments are repetitive, meaningless, and imply that you have an understanding you clearly don't have.
Here's an analogy to illustrate what I am talking about which is rates of growth of revenue and expense. We start with a tank full with 100 gals (100%)of water. We withdraw water at a rate of 5 gallons per minute (5%) and add water at 3-1/2 (3.5%) gallons per minute. The net result is that the tank is emptying out at a rate of 1-1/2 gals per minute and will be empty in a little more than 66 minutes. If we dump in 5 gallons of water from time to time we can extend the time for the tank to empty but we do not change the underlying trend of the tank emptying out. It is the rates that are important, not the level of the tank.
Anon 5:25, I don't believe in conspiracy theories, do not support the recall effort, and would not support Gagne staying in his position now that a decision has been made to not renew his contract. I believe in moving forward but do not believe in fabricating information when the facts speak for themselves.
Bill, Here's an idea for raising revenue. How about we charge a tax on anybody who doesn't pay property taxes but uses services. We could charge double for any of these people who stand before any board in town and ask for tax increases. People like Saul Raposo who pay nothing but make their hobby trying to make others pay more could actually pay their fair share.
Here's one, lets have people that have benefitted from services in the past and now that they no longer need them decide they should not pay for them pay double the tax. How's that?
sounds like we need to speak to those folks hoarding their water bill. I have mine, you dont is our new direction?
The people who no longer use services (ie. their children are grown) still pay their fair share of taxes. It's not that they don't want to pay anything, just that they want them to be reasonable. Some like Saul who pay ZERO, think that those who actually pay taxes can never pay enough (ie his views on the split tax.)
The people who no longer use services (ie. their children are grown) still pay their fair share of taxes. It's not that they don't want to pay anything, just that they want them to be reasonable.
Paying their fair share? tell that to the people whom have to pay $400 busing their child to school. The fees for sports are understandable. You play you pay. but to have to charge the parents of the students for transportation to/from school and on top of that its not deductable off your taxes because " The people who no longer use services (ie. their children are grown) still pay their fair share" is a lousy arguement. You cant tell me your parents were charged for bus service when you went to school. In addition ALL the fund-raising we are inundated with to add some of the extra's that we enjoyed when we went to school. The taxpayers whom dont have children in the system pay far less than their share for the same public education they enjoyed years ago.
O.K. so how do we get people like Saul (Who pays zero) to pay their fair share? If the school committee concentrated on taking care of the children instead of taking care of the adults, you wouldn't have bus fees. If Saul Raposo is only paying $400 per year to send his kids to school, he's got it a lot better than most people.
Why is everyone so nervous about Saul? Saul,Saul,Saul!!! If he doesnt live here he doesnt vote here. Sounds like he's gotten some people nervous
Saul hasn't made anyone nervous, he's just getting a little taste of his own medicine.
Saul does live and vote here, he just doesn't pay any property taxes here. Can you say freeloader?
How about people who operate a business at a residential property and then don't pay any business property taxes? I bet Citizens for Responsible Government doesn't like people who don't pay their fair share of property taxes. After all, what could possibly be more "responsible"?
Obviously you don't understand Dartmouth zoning laws Saul. But then again, if you were half as smart as you think you are, you wouldn't have had to start with personal attacks. How does it feel when you are personally attacked? Freeloading coward.
My question to all is if the town has been so poorly managed over the years how have we survived with the level of services that have been provided? Yes, there are area's in town government that can and should be tightened but we have more revenue than spending issues. Not to beat the tax issue to death but we do have among the lowest tax bills in the state. Also, our cost per citizen is amongst the lowest. Another thing to consider Bill is that you are going to fight the biggest of uphill battles in your "privatization/outsoursing efforts". I don't know what your experience is with unions but if your intention is to break the unions, which it appears to be, then you will need that army of lawyers that Joe says you have. My concern is that if you go in that direction and loose, which is entirely possible, then you will leave the town exposed to law suits etc. just like the Michael situation. I don't envy your position but tough decisions need to be made in a prudent manner and shooting from the hip won't do it. Here's hoping you have a strong game plan before you leap.
To anon 3:22,In my opinion,for the last 20 years or so, the town had very rapid growth and the money was flowing, but for the last several years,building slowed and our leaders didn't know how to manage the decrease. The town has been borrowing from Peter to pay Paul while not having any money in a stab fund.With the rising cost of health insurance,pensions, disabilities, cost of doing business (fuel,etc) and the accident of Officer Mello the town was left with nothing for an emergency situation. I don't think most resident knew how bad the town's financial situation was until maybe around 2006. No one paid attention to our finance com. Now I think more people are paying attention.
I don't think the town needs to bust the unions, but I do think they need to bargain in more creative ways. What about bi-weekly payroll, or the state's general health insurance? Believe me, contracts are signed by both parties and a fair contract can be reached. Just remember, the town does not exist for its employees. The employees work for the town. I think all communities will have an uphill battle when it comes to CPR. There is no way that the town can go on, even with overrides and maintain the services they have today. And, talk about potential lawsuits, every one of the contracts that had clauses inserted have put our town at risk for a potential lawsuit. That was just plain bad policy for the town.
Post a Comment