Personnel Bylaw amendment proposed

The Standard- Times article today about Mr. Walkers presentation at the Select Board on Monday was pretty one sided. You can link to it here. Basically Dartmouth's executive administrator was interviewed and he doesn't think the personal contracts should be changed. Apparently Mr Walker was not asked to contribute to the article.
I thought the Chronicle article (link here) was more balanced and covered the issue that Mr. Walker was there to propose an amendment to the Personnel Bylaws.
That amendment follows with my comments in italics:

Article to Amend the Personnel Bylaws

That the town vote to amend the Dartmouth Personnel Bylaws, by the following,

This section just does the housekeeping for the terms of the now seven member board

Amend section 3 A 1 By deleting the sentence,

Terms of service shall be so arranged that the term of one member expires each year.

And inserting in its stead, the sentence.

The terms of service shall be so arranged that the term of two members expire in successive years and the term of the remaining three members expire in the third year.

This section specifies what the annual report of the Personnel Board to the Town Meeting must include. Previously the bylaw said they must report annually but did not specify what the report was to include. In recent years the report was a list of the duties, not actions of the Personnel Board

Amend section 3.B.6 by adding ,

The annual report of the Personnel Board to the town shall include:

1. a report of the number of grievances referred to the Board under section 3.B.5 of the Personnel bylaw, the department or board referring each grievance, and the ruling or finding of the board in deciding the grievance.

2. a report of any modifications or additions to the job descriptions or class specifications as maintained by the board under Section 4.C.1 and the reasons for this modification or addition.

3. a report of any new job or position titles or re-evaluation of existing job title developed under section 4.C.2, and the need for such new job title or the re-evaluation of existing job title, and the resulting grade determination for the new position or change in grade, if any, for job titles being re-evaluated.

4. a report of any change of grade for employees advancing to a higher classification where such employee starts at a higher step than prescribed under section 4.C.3 and the reasons for this special circumstance

5. a report of the number of employees in advanced in step, the number to be sorted among the Class Titles of Schedule A. Also the number of employees not advanced in step, the number to be sorted among the Class Titles of Schedule A, and the result of any appeal to the board by employees failing to be recommended for step advancement as prescribed by Section 4.C.4

6. a report of the classification of all new employees as prescribed by Section 4.C.5

7. a report of funding estimates received from department heads as prescribed in Section 4.C.6

8. a report of any request for authorization for use of vacation leave on account of sickness received from department heads as prescribed by section 5.C.3and the disposition of that request

This section implements recommendation 7 of the DOR report which can be linked to here on pg 16 The DOR recommended limiting personal contracts

Amend section 4.D by deleting,

Entire section

And inserting in its stead

Any Board, Commission, or Committee may enter into a formal written contract with an employee of the Town listed in the Schedule A Administrative/Supervisory Group. This contract shall be approved as to legal form by Counsel, signed by the employee and a quorum of the governing Board, Commission, or Committee. Such employment contract shall be the sole agreement with the employee and contain all benefits that the employee is entitled to and shall meet the following requirements.

1: Individual employment contracts with department heads or management level employees are limited in duration to one year except for the Executive Administrator, Director of Budget and Finance , and Police Chief or as specifically authorized by statute or special act of the General Court. Such contracts shall not include any provision requiring continuation of the salary or wages, benefits, and leave package or other terms of the contract beyond the annual term of the contract. Contracts shall not include an affirmative duty by the Board, Commission, or Committee to continue the terms of the contract beyond the annual term, reduce or eliminate other positions within the town, or to offer alternative appointment to another position within the town.

2: Annual individual employment contracts will be limited to the salary or wages, benefits, and leave package provided by the amount of funds appropriated by the Town Meeting, benefits provided in the General Laws, and through the lawful establishment of a salary or wage. No contract shall be made in excess of available appropriations by Town Meeting.

3: Individual employment contracts shall not include any special fringe benefit not otherwise available to other employees as prescribed in section 5

4: The Personnel Board will develop and maintain a separate classification schedule for department heads and management level employees in order to minimize inequality in wages, benefits and leave packages between employees with similar positions, length of service, and responsibilities in different departments of the town. Contracts shall conform to the grades and steps established by the Personnel Board for the Administrative/Supervisory group. Adoption of the classification schedule will be by majority vote of the Town Meeting. Upon recommendation of the Personnel Board, adjustments to, or modification of the Administrative/Supervisory classification schedule will be by majority vote of the Town Meeting.

This bylaw to take effect upon expiration of the term of individual contracts in force following the enactment of this bylaw, and adoption by Town Meeting of the Administrative/Supervisory classification schedule as recommended by the Personnel Board

I support the adoption of this bylaw. Mass General Law requires that the Select Board place on the warrant any article brought to them with the signatures of ten voters of the town. MGL link here Let's get ten signatures and get it on the warrant. What do you think? Leave your comments below
UPDATE Mr Walker stated to the Select Board that the grades and steps mentioned in the last section might be replaced with "salary ranges" BT Click here to read on!

Override thoughts

Dartmouth’s Finance Committee does to great service to the community and has been issuing a spreadsheet that is very informative about the fiscal state of our town. It includes revenue and expense projections, PAYT report, school funding calculations, reserve fund transfers, etc. Much of their work is the basis for the town’s adoption of the reverse budgeting process. This process is being used to project current spending out to future years to measure the effect of that spending on the budget and our ability to sustain that spending. The news from this spreadsheet is grim. It shows that Dartmouth faces a total deficit of over $18 million dollars over the next five years if services are level funded and school budgets remain at Minimum Net School Spending (MNSS). To date, the Finance Committee has not included a projection of the effects of the proposed override questions on this picture. I don’t think they have been apprised of the full proposal in enough detail to do so. I presume and hope that this will be forthcoming. When apprised of changes such as the Select Boards decision to mandate police budgets, the change was quickly incorporated to the spreadsheet. As with any projections, there has to be assumptions made about inflation, etc. and these are all laid out in the spreadsheet. I point to this information as a model for how to present information to the public about how our town is funded and the need for increasing that funding. The current override questions have been presented as needs, not numbers. While this needs approach may be useful in generating emotion among the voters, it generates more heat than light. There remain questions about the effect of the proposed 7 override questions in the future and our ability to afford them. These questions need to be addressed. What I have seen so far is attacks on those who raise these questions as being divisive and not understanding our needs. I submit that the first order of business is to take a clear-eyed look at our town operations from a fiscal perspective. Funding additional personnel or opening buildings that we cannot sustain from the tax levy is a recipe for future disaster. I feel we have embarked on that course. I have yet to see a full financial analysis, such as the one provided from the Finance Committee, from the town as to the future effects of the current override proposals.

The spreadsheet from the Finance Committee includes an override proposal that I find has merit. This override question would be for $3.5 million dollars and would fund the town at level services and MNSS for the next five years. This $3.5 million dollar override does not include the $2.3 million dollar school question amounts or the $520,000 additional police officer question. But it does hold every department at level services for 5 years. If during that interval, departments can find efficiencies in delivering services and they can take advantage of the revenue available from those savings to supplement staff or increase services. This seems to me to be a common sense approach that both taxpayers and the town departments can live with.

What are your thoughts? Leave them in comments below. Click here to read on!

Speaking truth to power

I have been struggling with how to describe Mr Walker's appearance and his reception at the Select Board meeting last night. I have decided that you can watch it on DCTV if you are interested. Schedule link here
I have posted about the lack of trust that some residents have in our current leadership here.
Both Representative Quinn and Mr Walker came with the same message, Implement the DOR recommendations from last July. I think that the town is tired of the excuses from our leadership. Six months have passed since the DOR issued their report and our town is in dire financial straits. Why are we still looking into these things, not already finished, or at least well on our way. It appears to me that our leadership has probably spent more time this week working on rebuttals to those who appear before them than in trying to solve our town's fiscal woes. Some will require action with collective bargaining units. Why hasn't that started? If the re-energized personnel board is going to do this, where are they and what is the direction they have been given? So many questions and so few answers, so little leadership. Click here to read on!

It's heating up in the kitchen!

Wow! That was some Select Board meeting last night! Here is the first of my reports on the events that took place.

Congratulations to Mr. Theodore, 90 and a WWII veteran, who has honored last night. And to the high school students from the TCAN program who were honored as well.

Next was our state rep, Mr. Quinn, who pointed out that perhaps the constant finger pointing at the state might be misplaced. Remember that when pointing a finger, the rest are pointed at you. He noted that as a percentage of our municipal budget, the state support was the highest it has been since 1990. He urged the Select Board to push for implementation of the DOR recommendations from last July. These include joining the state health insurance program. According to his data, the costs for Dartmouth are up more than 70% since 2000 and the state cost are up less than 50% in the same period. Our health care advisors, (EBS Foran?, not sure of the name) presented afterward and, not surprisingly, pointed out some caveats to joining the state program. It is important to keep in mind that they are now paid to manage our health insurance and would not be if we went to the state plan. Generally spreading the cost and risk over a larger group, results in lower premiums over the long run. I think we should do it and need to start working on that right away. Then Mr. Quinn tackled the Voc Tech assessment. He pointed out the Ed reform gives the same amount of money to each child in the state for their education. Under the old formula, we were getting $7-9K per year for a student and paying GNBVT about $4K. He said the money has to follow the child. As a result we owed Voc for the past inequity and going forward must provide all the funds allocated to each student to Voc. Some new information to me was that Dartmouth’s Voc enrollment was up 50 students in the same period from 157 to 208. That explains a lot of the jump in cost as well. His take was that the likelihood of the town prevailing in their suit against Voc was slim and we are wasting our money. Mr. Quinn also noted that Dartmouth should look into getting the Bristol County pension fund to join the state pension fund. While not a way to save money in the short term, the Bristol fund has under performed the state fund number in the 1, 5, 10 and 20 year time frame. This represents a large amount of money that we will have to make up in the future and going to the other fund will prevent that from continuing. Our rep also noted that the real growth in town revenue, when new growth and all other town taxes are considered, is among the top in the state over the last ten years. When asked about Prop 2-1/2, he said that Dartmouth was one of only 60 communities in Mass to have never passed an operational override. He was not encouraging about overturning the 2-1/2 provision.

More in additional posts.

Update - Curt Brown has also blogged about Rep. Quinn here

Click here to read on!

Select Board meeting tonight

Our Select Board will hear from our state rep, John Quinn, tonight on the legislative progress of the FY09 budget and presumably what that holds for the town. I don't expect that we have much help from that quarter as the state is pretty much broke too.
The Select Board will address the town about the now adopted override questions for the first time in open public meeting. I'm sure we will hear a lot about receivership and the Dartmouth we all know and love being gone forever if we don't vote for the whole package. I'd like to see a concise presentation of how much money is going to whom and why. Not likely, in my opinion. Easier to use scare tactics and appeals to emotion. It's not that I don't think the town needs an override, we do. Just tell the truth to the people and tell them exactly what they are getting for their money. I think the questions would have a better chance if they hadn't added $300,000 for new hires to the $1.5 million general government question, if they had included all the money that the police need in one question, and trimmed the school question. Just my opinion but others I have talked with agree. Look at the poll results on this blog as well. I would like to see a rational, dollars and cents, here is what we will lose, here is what we will keep, and here is what it costs presentation but I'm not going to hold my breath. A frequent comment is that the people don't think the town has made any progress in trimming costs. I agree and it is my observation that the department heads have not even been charged with preparing a budget the reflects the reduced funding available. No surprise that they haven't found ways to do things differently if they are not asked to.
The CFRG's Barry Walker is also on the agenda regarding personal contracts, that could be interesting! Click here to read on!

Common sense policies for our fiscal crisis

I believe that we cannot tax our way to fiscal health. If expenses are growing faster than revenue, raising taxes is a temporary solution. The rate of growth of expenditures must be reduced for the town to thrive in the long term.
Spend on necessities first
• Prioritize spending- highest to lowest
(police 1st, etc. Cut from lowest, add to highest when funds become available.)
Analyze future costs of present actions
• Eliminate personal contracts
(Assign to a non union pay scale with the pay rates to the town's advantage, raises to be merit based only and subject to available funds)
• Every new expenditure must be examined for long term affordability
(Hiring new employees, purchasing new equipment)
• The long term sustainability of present operations must be analyzed.
If we cannot pay for them, we need to look at ways to change. Privatize, automate, contract out)
Find creative ways to reinvent government
• Cut management costs
(It seems that all cuts fall on those employees who actually provide the services. We need to look at upper and mid management first)
• Our residents are a great resource
(Townspeople have a wide variety of knowledge and skills, embrace their participation and expertise, follow up on their ideas)
• Copy what works, change what doesn't
(Many towns have been in this situation, find out what they did)
• Information technology has transformed our world. Use it to transform the operations of our town
(Online payments, direct deposits, useful & effective town website)
Communicate and cooperate
• Budget for the town must consider all departments
(School v general gov't has to end, budget summit with all involved, consensus solutions)
• Tell the taxpayers everything, hear them out
(no sweetheart contracts, no golden handshakes, no behind the scenes maneuvering, let the public speak to Board) Click here to read on!

The emperor has no clothes!

Our Select Board chair and some members have been touting the fact that the DOR recommendations have been adopted and that a plan is in place. Either they have not read the DOR report or they are spinning the facts. They have not implemented the very first and definitely the most important of the DOR recommendations. The top recommendation was to have a plan.
WE DO NOT HAVE A PLAN.
Just last night I attended the Finance Committee meeting where the DPW presented their FY09 budget. The budget presented was what the DPW called their "needs" budget. So what's wrong with that? Well, we do not have the money to fund their "needs" budget, override or no override. Obviously our town administrators have been working away on budgets and plans that have no basis in financial reality. As we saw with the Police Chief a few weeks ago, the department heads have not been told what our shortfall will be and what portion of that shortfall will be apportioned to their department. It is not that the information is not available or widely know. Nonetheless, our town employees are busily working away to prepare budgets that have no basis in fact. That is a failure in leadership of monumental proportion. Our administrators are not working on alternatives to manage the available revenue or innovative ways of doing more with the same resources, they are working on fiction.
Here is the recommendation of the DOR (I'll reproduce it in part here rather than just link to it because I think it important that everyone see this)

A town-wide financial plan is the integration of multi-year revenue projections, adopted polices (such as reserve policies), and analyses of organizational goals and their long-term impact on expenditures. The purpose of this plan is to call attention to the community’s fiscal condition and the alternatives available to manage it. Whatever form such a plan takes, it should contain the following core elements:
1. Multi-year outlook (3-5 fiscal years)
2. Inventory of revenue sources and projected increases/decreases
3. Expenditure projections that reflect labor, expenses and planned service levels
4. Impact of financial goals/policies are assigned a specific dollar value
5. Integration of infrastructure investment based on approved capital plan
6. Current-year revenue and expenditure monitoring
7. Presentation format that facilitates meaningful communication to the public
Since there appears to be consensus among policy makers and administration that a financial plan should be developed, the next step is to establish exactly what such a plan would look like. The select board, as the chief executive board for the town, should convene a working group whose membership should include, but not be limited to, the executive administrator, director of budget and finance and representation from the finance, capital planning and school committees. The group’s charge should be to develop recommendations regarding the content of the plan for the select board’s consideration. Financial planning is key to the management of available resources and the funding demands of current and anticipated services. However, be forewarned, formulating a financial plan will not provide an infusion of cash to resolve current budgetary woes. Rather, it is a mechanism to help stabilize town finances moving forward. BOLD EMPHASIS MINE

This course of action, this plan if you will, clearly spelled out last July by the DOR, has not been implemented. Stating that it has is not truthful. I have attended enough Select Board and Finance Committee meetings and talked to enough department heads to tell you unequivocally the core elements as laid out by the DOR have not been implemented and in most aspects do not exist. I have heard enough nonsense and I will not stand by and pretend. The emperor has no clothes! Click here to read on!

Double Whammy!

Last night at the Finance Committee meeting, Larry Fox raised a point that I had not thought about before. He pointed out that the school extracurricular sports and music question (fee elimination)question was actually a double hit. We lose $325,000 in revenue and have to make it up with $325,000 in expense. This differs from the other questions in that they just add revenue. This one reduces revenue while raising expense. A double whammy! Click here to read on!

Frank's Big Adventure

FrankG and I have had some discussion here about computer technology and the schools. He has had an opportunity to tour the high school and has graciously offered to allow me to post his observations. Here is his report
I promised that I would report back after my school IT tour because of expressed interest, so here it is.
Let me first say that my hosts were very gracious and helpful to my quest for information. It would be human nature to wonder about this stranger who is asking all these questions, but I found them to be nothing but cooperative, including when I wanted to open 1 of the boxes to see what was inside. I will also say that there are only 2 IT guys to maintain the 1630 computers that were listed in the most current inventory, 1 of them mostly hardware and the other mostly software. This would be a daunting task if all the computers were in the same building, let alone scattered around the town. They have done a great job working with what they have been given.
I have sent Dr. Russell a report on my findings, including recommendations and some follow-up things. I have found him to be very receptive to both my offers of help and my suggestions. We have already had additional conversation on some items, and he told me he will continue to follow-up. I told all of them that I would be glad to be a resource for them, and I expect more communication to take place.
Many of my suggestions were a little off the intended focus of my visit, but since I am a pretty observant guy I couldn’t help noticing some things as well as commenting on them. Some of these observations were around system security in general, users having too much access to things that could raise havoc and create maintenance headaches, and energy conversation. Let me briefly talk about the last one.
Computers use power, even when in the “sleep” mode, and the biggest offenders are the CRT type monitors. The best thing to do with a computer that isn’t going to be used again for a while is to shut it off. The next best thing to do is at least shut off the monitor. The computer only cares that a monitor be connected, not whether it is off or on. We can all save significant energy if we develop the habit of shutting off the monitor when we are not going to be using the computer for a while, say a couple of hours, and furthermore shutting off the entire computer when it will not be used for a long time, say until the next day. The monitor tip is much less important with LCD type monitors, by which the design itself uses much less energy, but still doesn’t operate for free.
Unfortunately the school uses almost all CRT type monitors, I think I only saw 1 LCD in my travels, which was limited to just the HS. In addition virtually every computer in the place was still turned on, although “sleeping”, but to me this is entirely unacceptable, especially during a vacation week. In fairness to those in charge, there is a policy to shut them off but apparently no one is following the rules and it should not be expected for the 2 IT guys to have to be “computer police”. This needs to be dealt with at a higher level and was one of my recommendations to Dr. Russell. I also listed that all monitor replacements be of the LCD type in the future. I wouldn’t have made this recommendation 2 years ago but they are much better now in their ability to render a picture accurately.
Now, here is what the landscape looks like with regard to Mac or PC. Of the 1630 computers, 55.3% of them are Macs, with the density higher in the lower grades. Here is the breakdown:
HS – 24.2% Mac
MS – 55.2% Mac
EL – 92.0% Mac
This includes any laptop type machines. My recommendation is that any future purchases be of the PC variety, and I specifically mentioned the less than $400 Dells, and the $500 Dell laptops. By the way, every PC I saw was a Dell, so this is consistent with my thoughts, and just because they are inexpensive they should not be considered “cheap”. It is not that there is anything wrong with a Mac, but because of the evolution of PCs in the last few years there is nothing wrong with them either, AND a much better value, which is key when budgets are concerned. I furthermore recommended that all new purchases, with the exception of the laptops needed for the mobile carts, be put into the High School and a Mac be rotated out to a lower grade. The one exception to this that I mentioned is that the Graphic Arts area stay with Mac because the industry still prefers them. When I toured this area it was equipped with all fairly new Macs so no attention is needed for a while.
The vast majority of my time was spent with the “what needs replacement” question. The main observation I made is that virtually all computers didn’t have enough memory to run modern software effectively, even some of the newer ones. There were a lot of computers still running an older version of Windows (9x), that is causing them a lot of grief, but because of the lack of memory they couldn’t move to XP. They have an Educational License for XP so it could be put on all PCs for only the labor cost and time to do it.
I found several very old PCs that quite frankly should be taken out of service. These were about 10+ years old and still running the original Pentium processor. We booted one of these and it took a loooooong time for it show anything that looked like “life”. We were just about to give up on it when it finally got to the user interface. These are really not adequate for any current software, and when you add the requirement for network support they just choke. My recommendation to them was to try to get XP on all machines possible because it is not only the best, most trouble free OS that Microsoft has every made, but it allows better security and user restriction which can only help in the long run. It also works much better in a network environment, both wired and wireless. There is a lot to be said just for standardization, let alone ancillary benefits. They like the idea of all XP, even on new purchases.
There were a lot of fairly new computers, so that leaves the group of “middle-aged” ones. Many of these were marginal performers as configured, but a memory upgrade will do wonders for most of them. Any memory upgrade for 1 machine will cost about $45 to $50, and my recommendation is to try and “trickle down” some of what is currently installed to save some money. The most intensive requirement that I saw was the CAD area, so I would start there. I would upgrade those machines, and any memory that is removed I would put into other machines. Since memory RAM sticks come in a variety of capacities and configurations, I would try to match what is needed with what falls out, and is purchased. Using the hand-me-down memory will allow most of the marginal performers to be perfectly adequate for the intended use of a typical student.
Replacing memory is an easy task too, and the IT guys were enthused about being able to expand the total number of good computers available. They are going to do an experiment with some of the middle-aged machines and let me know. I predict they will like the results very much. Some of what they have is similar to 1 of the older computers I have running on my home network, except for the memory, so I am sure their testing will bear fruit. This will allow the need for replacements to be revised, so except for the needed laptops the rest of the list is in flux, and those laptops will most likely be Dells and not Apples, a significant savings.
I enjoyed this project and am sure it will help the school system in some fashion, probably on several fronts, so it was worth the trip.
Thanks again, FrankG. If you and anyone else would like to post here, just let me know and I can hook you up with the necessary passwords and permissions. Click here to read on!

Dollars and results

The fiscal problem in Dartmouth is caused by the rate of growth of expenses outstripping the rate of growth of revenue. I have posted about that here and here
I have also posted about measuring dollars spent as a valid measure of results here
Some want to frame this debate as a matter of cutting services or raising taxes. I submit that this framing of the question is invalid. We can cut costs and retain or improve services. The productivity gains in business and industry in the US over the last two decades have not been driven by more employees or more spending to provide the same service. They have been driven by reinventing the way that business is conducted. Information technology has been a driving force in these changes. Business constantly strives to reduce costs while providing services. Government must do the same. What resources can the town tap to realize these improvements? I think the residents are one such resource, the other under-utilized resource is UMass Dartmouth. The thousands of students and hundreds of faculty there are a real source of vitality and knowledge for the town which I think we can use. I think the administration of UMass would embrace the challenge. Click here to read on!

Override questions formulated $5,600,0000!!!

The Select Board met this afternoon and approved 7 override questions and a debt exclusion question. The library trustees request for an override question of $54,000 to reopen the North Dartmouth branch was not approved for the ballot by the Select Board.
So there is no complaint that the order of the questions was fixed to influence their passage, the Select Board drew lots for the ballot order of questions. Here are the questions in the order that they will be placed on the ballot.

Police $520,000 Funding for 7 additional police officers, one of whom will be a School Resource Officer (SRO)
This first is the only question that I will vote for. BT

Library $90,000 Funding for books and operating costs for the Southworth library

Schools $2,094,000 Funding for texts, computers, teachers, staff, and reopening Cushman and Gidley schools

School fees $325,000 Funding to eliminate school fees
If we are trying to increase revenue, why would we pass an override to eliminate a revenue stream? This one really has me puzzled

General Government $1,511,000 Funding of $1,200,000 for level services for all town departments (except schools) and $300,000 for new employees.

Debt exclusion $3,174,000 for 10 years Debt exclusions are temporary overrides which expire when paid off. This one adds $300,000 a year to the tax levy for 10 years

Stabilization fund $1,000,000 This amount was voted to allow the town to continue funding the budget without an override through FY11.

The Select Board has directed that the police department will be funded for level services even without the override. So failure to pass the General Government question does not cut the police department budget. The separate police question adds 7 officers.

Voting for the $1,000,000 addition to the Stabilization Fund may have introduced a sunset provision in this override question, if passed. The Mass General Law on overrides includes this from MGL Chap 59,sect 21C(g):
If a question as aforesaid shall provide for assessing taxes for the purpose of funding a stabilization fund established pursuant to section 5B of chapter 40, the assessors shall in each successive fiscal year assess property taxes for the same purpose in an amount equal to 102.5 per cent of the amount assessed in the next preceding year in which additional taxes were assessed for such purpose, but only if the local appropriating authority votes by a 2/3 vote to appropriate such increased amount in such year for such purpose. The voters of the city or town, by majority vote at a referendum, may alter the purpose of a stabilization fund or authorize the assessment of such additional property taxes for another purpose. In any year in which the local appropriating authority does not vote to appropriate such amount as aforesaid, the total property tax levy for such year shall be reduced by the amount that could otherwise have been assessed, so that such additional taxes may not be assessed for any other purpose. BOLD EMPHASIS MINE, BT
My reading is that if not voted to continue in future years, the Stab fund amount of $1,000,000 would be removed from the tax levy. I am not sure that the Select Board intended to have it that way.
Some of the numbers I gave above may be off a few tens of thousands, I do not have the worksheets that the Select Board had today. The Budget Director keeps insisting that these numbers are "fluid" and keep changing all the time. I haven't figured out yet why that would be and nobody challenged him on why the numbers change from meeting to meeting. In fairness, I have to note that Select Board member Gilbert pointed out several times that the numbers were different.
Anyway there are the contestants for our override sweepstakes. Any one care to bet on the winners? Leave your thoughts in comments Click here to read on!

Override question deadline

The Select Board is down to the wire for approving override questions in time for the April 1 election. Questions must be presented to the Town Clerk no less than 35 days before the vote. That makes Tuesday Feb 26th the deadline. So I am assuming that the Select Board will have to meet and approve the override questions this week in order to have time to have them vetted by the legal department and submitted to the Clerk on time.
One additional note on last Thursday's Select Board meeting. At the end, the Budget Director and Executive Administrator were discussing the hiring of additional personnel with the funds provided via an override. Their spin on the matter was that since these positions were once staffed, but are not now, the added people are not actually an increase. HUH, WHA..HUH? Unfortunately, the logic, or illogic, of their position on these additional salaries and benefits was not challenged. I don't know if it was because the meeting was breaking up or if the Select Board was buying the argument. If this is revisited in the future, I hope that any hiring is carefully considered since employee costs are the bulk of the so-called fixed costs that are at the root of our problem. Click here to read on!

Some points of interest on overrides

Before the Select Board meeting started on Thursday, Greg Jones had asked our Executive Director, Mike Gagne, about how the funds from an override were handled at Town Meeting. Essentially the question was, could Town Meeting vote to use the funds as they wished? I have posted about how the Town Meeting process works here. Mike had information from the state Department of Revenue (DOR) stating that the funds from an override are earmarked for the purpose stated on the ballot question. Town Meeting can vote to spend the funds or not, but the funds can only be spent for the purpose voted on. For example if an override question for $500,000 was passed to fund the police department, the Town Meeting can vote to spend it for police or put it in the Stab fund for future use for police, but cannot vote to use it for the schools or DPW.
The Mass General Law on overrides also contains the specific language that must be used when posing a override question. Link here. It was also discussed at the meeting that the override question cannot advocate for or against its passage in its text. In other words, the question must be neutral, "Shall $x taxes be assessed for instructional materials in the schools (or for additional police officers)?" is permitted but "Shall $x taxes be assessed for instructional materials to prevent our children for falling behind (or to fight rising crime)" would not. Click here to read on!

Thoughts on the April Override

I have posted previously about the General Government and Police override requests here.
The other override requests are for the library ($90,000 for books and staff and $54,000 to reopen the North Dartmouth branch). I think that the library should be a priority over some other things that we currently spend more than $90,000 to fund. Cut those things from the budget and give the funds to the library without requiring an override. I think that this override request is being used to avoid having to make other difficult decisions. Knowing that the townspeople value the library, it is selected for a separate override request while the parks, recreation and other spending are not. Are we, the public, being played? It seems so to me. The North Dartmouth branch will have to remain closed in my view. We don't have the money!
I have written about the schools repeatedly. Here, here, and here (in the comments) for example.
As I have pointed out due to the required increases in the foundation budget, the schools will get $1.6 million more this year than last year. Nearly 1/3 of their "priority needs" override request is for non academic teachers and non teaching staff.
It is information technology, not computers, that is transforming our world. The focus on the number of computers is off the mark in my opinion. The important aspect is how our schools are using information technology to educate the children. See my post here on that.
Just last year, the school department closed two elementary schools to save money. Now they want to reopen those schools. The reopening plan does not take into account the long term costs these reopenings and I believe will require additional funds in future years. I would like to see a five year projection of the costs of staffing, maintaining and operating these two schools before approving an override to reopen them. Will we need an additioanl override a year or two from now to sustain these two schools? I think we will. Let's get that all encompassing plan out to the public and vote on it rather than jump into this and then need to go back again for more funds.
I feel that fees for extra curricular activities are justified and should continue. Fees for transportation are a source of revenue and we cannot afford to turn added revenue away.
So that in a nutshell is my take. What do you think? Leave your comments below. Click here to read on!

Select Board considers override amounts

Curt Brown has blogged about the override here. He goes over what that board discussed the last couple meetings. For full details, read his account.
Here is a brief rundown of the override amounts as discussed so far. These seem to have the consensus of the Board and I expect the final result will look very close to this list with each as a separate question.

1-General Government override question $1,511,000 (see S-T article for details)but roughly $1.2 million to level fund departments and $300K for new employees.
2-Police for 7 additional officers and equipment $521, 000
3-Funds to provide sustainability for budget through FY11. $1,030,000 (These funds would be put in the Stabilization Fund and drawn down in FY10&11 to avoid shortfall in those years)
4-Library books and staff $90,000
5-Open North Dartmouth library $54,000
6-Schools $2,094,000
7-School fee elimination $325,000

Total override if all are approved $5,625,000

My feeling is that the amount being requested for the first question is about right. This will keep our town on life support for the coming year. Having said that and on hearing the discussions the past couple days, my feeling is that most of our town leaders still don't get it. They have done nothing to address the root problem and don't seem to think they can or should address it going forward. I think we need to fundamentally change the way we do business. They are talking about an override to get them through a few years and then going back to the voters for more. The funds to sustain the budget through FY11 may or may not be a separate question. The majority of the board seemed to support the idea of including it in the first question. I think that sustainability is important as well, but my point all along has been that sustainability cannot be achieved on the revenue side. Even with the inclusion of the additional $1 million, we are in the red in 3 years. The rate of growth of spending has to be cut. Unfortunately, failure to pass some override this year will cut to the bone. So I would hold my nose and vote for the General Gov't question.
Another option is to move all the override funds for the police department out of this General Government question. Without passage of the General Government question, the police department will have to cut 5 officers. Meanwhile the Police question adds 7 more. If the General Gov't question fails and the Police question passes, the approved funds would only cover 2 more cops. The board could make up the difference by cutting other departments and indicated that they would do so. I think a better solution is just put all the money the Police Chief needs in one question. Then the voters can clearly vote to keep the present force and add officers with a minimum of confusion. As I understand it, that would put the Police question at about $1 million dollars and reduce the General Gov't request to $1 million. I support an override for policing.
If the sustainability funds and a portion of the police funds are kept in the General Gov't question, I'll vote for it. Not because I think it a good idea, but it would give the town time to make changes in leadership, in the voting booth if needed. Basically, the town has done little to change so far and they don't seem to be moving to change now. The "fixed costs" that are always cited as the problem are not as fixed as some want us to believe. They are the result of the costs of direct employees. These fixed costs can be reduced by cutting the town's directly employed workforce. Contracting services shifts these fixed costs off the town onto the contractor. Since they are not bound by the same regulations about vacation, pension and health care, these contractors may be able to provide the same service at lower fixed cost and maybe at lower cost, period.
I'll have to finish my thoughts in another post. This is getting pretty long. But quickly, I don't support any of the other questions. I'll give my reasons in future posts.
UPDATE
An additional consideration is the $3,000,000 debt exclusion that will be on the ballot. This exclusion would add $300,000 to the tax increases from overrides, but would end when the debt is retired in 10 years. Click here to read on!

Spin, pivot, cloud

This op-ed letter in the S-T today is pretty breathtaking in its ability to cloud the real issue, spin the facts, and pivot to completely unrelated issues.
First, It is the Select Board, who agreed to these contract terms which are clearly not in the interest of the town, that is responsible for "creat(ing) resentment, suspicion, mistrust and a kettle full of distasteful innuendo" and not the person who revealed the details. Our elected officials need to respond to these revelations if they hope to get the electorate to vote for an override.
Second, these contracts were made with the Executive Administrator, Budget Director, DPW Superintendent, Director of Assessing, Director of Inspectional Services, Town Collector, Harbormaster, and municipal paralegal. While some on that list may be critical employees, some are clearly not. Even if difficult to replace, no one is indispensable.
As pointed out in the letter, some of these employees have worked for the town for many years. They don't need these contractual guarantees if they are clearly doing such a great job.
Lastly, the idea that guaranteeing jobs, salary and benefits to town employees is an example of good top level government, common sense, and smart management is so transparently spinning the issue that it needs no response.
UPDATE-CORRECTION
I made an error in the original post when listing the employees covered by these no-cut contracts. The Town Collector, not the Town Accountant, is one of the eight. Correction is in italics above BT Click here to read on!

With the Select Board

I was able to attend some of the Select Board meeting today. I'll try to get by there tomorrow as well. I will give all of you an update from my point of view tomorrow night after this next meeting. Click here to read on!

Select Board meeting schedule

The Select Board will meet today and tomorrow at 3PM in room 301 of the Town Hall according to the Town Clerk's office. Don't have an agenda on town website but my guess is they are discussing override questions. Click here to read on!

Other thoughts about the Select Board meeting

-Trash If the DPW is only collecting half the trash as they did before Pay-as-you-throw was implemented, why don't they collect the trash once very two weeks. Half the town one week and half the other. That only requires half the people.

-Still the Greatest Generation The only town department not to ask for more money in an override was the Council on Aging. These seniors are a lesson to us all. These are the taxpayers who suffer more than most when property taxes are raised. Many lived through the Great Depression, World War II, and know a thing or two about communities pulling together and shared sacrifice. Their needs have as much or more claim to our tax dollars as anyone. Their response, "we'll get by , we'll make due, we will find a way", should be humbling to us all.

-No cuts It seems that every current employee and department in town is critically needed. Even things like the Recreation Department can't be cut at all. Reducing employees, who are the reason for a large portion of those "fixed costs" that are eating us up, is not an option.

We have to prioritize our spending, make sure that any spending can be sustained from the tax base without overrides, and restructure, reform, reinvent(or whatever you want to call it) our town government. If nothing else is done but pass an override, we will find ourselves in the same situation a few years from now. The only difference will be that we are broke at a much higher level than today. Better to suffer the pain now and solve the problem than apply the salve of an override and suffer doubly later on. Click here to read on!

Select Board meetings?

Diane Gilbert mentioned that the Select Board will meet 2 or 3 more times this week to discuss override questions. Can anyone tell me when and where they will be meeting? Click here to read on!

Funding for education

A few thoughts on the school department's override requests at the Select Board.

-ExcellenceThe football team and band are excellent. Our students academic achievement, so-so. Why are we spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for extra curricular activities (sports, band, etc) when our students are not achieving academically and don't have textbooks.

-School Enrollment Reduction The background materials say that up to 600 students will be reassigned to Cushman and Gidley. It also shows 10 teachers reassigned to each school. 600 students/ 2 schools= 300 students/school. 300students/10 teachers=30 students/teacher. Something's not adding up here.

-Bravo for including the benefit costs in the new teaching positions request. Now let's see the costs over the next five years for step increases, COLAS, tuition reimbursement, etc. Can we sustain these new positions within the anticipated revenue?
-Technology 8% of computers worldwide run MacOS, 91% run Windows.Link here School department computers are mostly Macs. We should be buying Windows boxes, not Macs.That may be the plan. I hope so and here's why. Business and industry use Windows, so should our schools. The costs per computer as listed in the override request backup material is nearly $1,000. I can't see why you or I could buy a single laptop for $500 and they are spending twice that when buying 150.
- There are no technology needs listed for either Gidley or Cushman. The re-opening of those schools is included in the override request. Will they get any textbooks or computers?

-Fee Free Initiative From the same report that Dr. Russel cited in his presentation. Link here94 school districts charged transportation fees in 2006, 200 school districts charged fees for athletics. Thousands of our students are not achieving adequately on MCAS. What are our priorities, no sports fees or education for every child?

-School Staffing$325,000 of the priority needs request is for non academic teachers (PE, music) and staff(principal, secretary, Instructional technology).

Once again, the school department's budget has never been reduced. They are going to get $1.4 million more in funding this year than last year, even without an override. Click here to read on!

Overrides and small business

In the fall, the Select Board voted to apply a tax classification or split tax rate to the town's tax levy. Under this arrangement, businesses are taxed at a higher rate than residences. This option is allowed by the tax code because residential property values tend to grow faster than business property values over time. Frank Gracie gave an excellent presentation before the board on why this is so. I agree with the decision of the board that the split tax rate was warranted. The burden of the tax levy had been steadily shifted away from business and on to residents over the years. The split tax restored the balance.
At the time, several members of the Board expressed their reluctance to increase taxes on small businesses. However now that overrides are on the agenda, the impact of increased taxes on small business seems to have been forgotten. The Board is ready and willing to pile more taxes on the small business community and seems to have forgotten their earlier concerns about the impact. With a split tax rate in place, override increases fall more heavily on these business taxpayers. That is another of the reasons that we need to keep override increases to the lowest possible amount. Click here to read on!

That's what I'm talking about

I attended the Finance Committee meeting Thursday evening and I think a couple of things which came up there illustrate the points I have been bringing up on this blog. The first is that we have to consider all the consequences of the decisions that we make as a town. In response to a question from the Finance Committee, the school superintendent admitted that the costs for new teachers included in their override request did not take into account the benefits that go along with these new hires. These costs, including health insurance, are the very ones often cited as budget busters. So we are being asked to approve an override request that does not include the all the costs associated with maintaining those positions over time. I find this very disappointing given our recent history.
Secondly, the school administrator wanted to enlist the Finance Committee in recommending the school's override request to the town. He felt that they had the credibility to convince the voters to approve it. I happen to agree with him in regard to their credibility, but it is a sad commentary that the full time administrators paid by the town to run our business don't have the trust of the electorate. Click here to read on!

Tone and substance

One of the goals that I have in creating this blog and in running for Select Board is to raise the level of discussion in the town. While I disagree with the positions taken by LizO, Phil Lenz, Kathleen or TheSherpa/Kali in comments on this blog, that's it. We disagree. I have not questioned their reasonableness or their good intentions. They have laid out their side and I have argued mine. I'm sure they are good people who want the best for their families and the town. What we have are philosophical differences. For example, I think the schools must cut extra curricular activities if they don't have textbooks. Phil and Liz disagree and think we should just spend more and have both. I think the town understands the need for more funding but wants priorities set, some cuts, and a commitment going forward to try to live within our means. My take is that the townspeople lack confidence in the current administration to get that done. Kathleen, Kali, and others disagree.
I have and will continue to address issues and will try not to question the motives of those who comment or my opponent in the Select Board race. That said, I feel justified in challenging unfounded or misinformed statements made here as to my knowledge of the issues, motivations or character. This is not about me, you or anyone else. It is about the issues facing the town. If you think I have my facts wrong, say so, and lay out your case. Backing it up with cited sources or other documentation adds to the credibility of any argument. If you think my position is wrong, tell me your opinion and why you hold it. I may disagree or I may change my mind. The latter is unlikely if the substance of your argument is that I just don't understand or that I am unreasonable. Click here to read on!

Crisis! What crisis?

It is no surprise to anyone who has read the newspapers for the last year, that Dartmouth is facing a fiscal crisis. How have our town leaders responded?
Well, we learned at the last Select Board meeting that the heads of a least two departments had no idea that they would be required to cut their budgets. In fact, both had planned to come before the Select Board to lay out their case for an increase. They were told on Friday afternoon that they would get a 10% cut in funding and to prepare their presentation for Monday accordingly.
One might expect prudent management, knowing that the town revenue was falling short of expenses, to call together all the department heads, lay out the grim fiscal forecast, get to work to trim costs, brainstorm for new ideas, and plan for future hard times. Is that what has happened in Dartmouth? No, department heads were told to present their needs budget. Not a reduced budget but their needs budget. Only just last week was information on the degree of cuts given to the department heads. Consequently, those department heads have not been focused on how they might get by with less, what their department could do to mitigate the impact of those cuts, or maybe even come up with innovative ways to do so. No, they have been planning on hiring more employees we can't afford and opening buildings we can't maintain. Finally the public gets the theater of these department heads expressing their consternation when they find out they have been given the bait and switch.
Now the best plan they can come up with is to throw the responsibility for managing the town's finances on the taxpayers in a menu based override. It really beyond sad and we deserve better. Click here to read on!

There are needs and then there are needs

The school administration have put forth their needs. The Select Board had the Police Chief and Library Director last week to detail what they see as their needs. The plan is to have the other department heads come before the Board to lay out the needs of their departments as well. Finally all these needs will be rolled up into an override question or questions. There is only one group whose needs will not get a public airing. That group is the taxpayers! And especially the group of taxpayers will suffer the most if the needs of all the departments in the town are met. Some who comment here feel that I just don't understand the needs of the school department or Council on Aging or whoever.
But I have been going around the neighborhoods of the town, knocking on doors to collect nomination signatures, and talking to the people of the town. Some of those residents have been telling me about the burden that property taxes place on them. Elderly on fixed income and people on disability tell me that their property tax bills now amount to their monthly income for 2 or 3 months. They are worried about how they will pay an increase if an override passes. Just as the costs to the town for heat, light, insurance, and fuel have outstripped the town's revenues, so have they increased for those in our community on fixed income. $200 or even $500 more a year in taxes will not cause me undue pain and maybe not you either. But keep in mind that there are many in our community who cannot afford that kind of increase. Who may have to sell their home or go without necessities if an override passes. So when you hear the town departments ask for this many thousand or millions of dollars for their needs, keep in mind the very real needs of your neighbors. They will not get an override to pay their increased tax bills. There are needs and then there are needs. Click here to read on!

Is it mis-management?

Some have expressed to me that they feel Dartmouth's financial problems are due to mis-management by the town. I feel that mis-management is a loaded term and signifies to some a willful act of disregard or malfeasance. I do not believe that is the case in Dartmouth. It seems to me that what transpired is due to lack of planning or foresight. Dartmouth's government failed to take into account the long term consequences of actions, contracts, and obligations into which they entered. The result of these actions is that the yearly growth in expenditures is not sustainable by revenue growth in the long term. Overrides can mask this situation for short periods but until the rate of growth of spending is reconciled with the rate of growth of revenue, the town will continue to be in fiscal crisis.
Having said that, I can not support an override to add staff to the schools or any other department of the town without considering the long term fiscal consequences. To do so, especially now, is adding folly to grief. Addition of over 20 positions to the school budget in the current situation will only exacerbate our fiscal problem. The first rule when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. Some parents don't want to hear this message and understandably feel that their needs are not being met. You don't have to take my word that our financial situation is dire. Ask the Finance Committee or Budget and Revenue Task Force, Select Board, or town administrators. I am sure they will agree that our current situation is unsustainable in the long term, even with overrides. I am not opposed to any override. In fact, the town must have an override this year to avoid having to drastically cut critical services. The school department will get a funding increase this year, that is state mandated. The survival of many other departments in town is what is at stake here. What I advocate is an override that would stabilize the town for a few years and give us time to get our house in order. That override would be sufficient to maintain the operation of all departments of the town at current levels and keep the school spending at Minimum Net School Spending level. The override amount needed would be about $3.75 million. As I have noted before, an override that restored the residential tax rate to the same level as before the tax classification would raise about $3 million. I think that the townspeople can be convinced accept the additional tax burden that the $75K would add. But they have to be convinced that the town is not going to continue on the same path. By limiting the override request as I just outlined, I believe they will pass an override. Conversely, if the townspeople doubt that all departments are committed to live within our means, the override will fail and Dartmouth will be well on it's way to receivership. Click here to read on!

Public Meeting schedule?

Anyone know why the meeting schedule for this week has not been posted on the town website? Click here to read on!

The incredible shrinking menu

Now that the School Committee has rolled all their override menu into a single request, I guess that it is now forwarded to the Select Board for their action. In case you haven't heard, the amount of the request is $2.3 million dollars. The $1.5 million for capital items is also still on the table.
This override request is in addition to the annual revenue that the schools get due to the increase in net minimum school spending requirements. The only department in town not to have a budget cut last year, turns around and asks for an override. Oh yes, don't forget the $2.3 million doesn't include the money they will need next year to continue their school reorganization plan.
The $2.3 million includes $665K for textbooks and technology. I want to point out the an override is a permanent increase in taxes, so that $665 continues year after year and is incremented by 2-1/2%. They are either going to be swimming in textbooks and technology, or, more likely, the money will be spent for something else after this year. This amount should not be an override but a capital exclusion which is a 1 year increase in taxes.
One has to question why a prudent school board or school administrator would not include money in the budget on an ongoing basis for texts and technology. Now that the schools have made bad choices with the money they were given, they want the taxpayers to hand over a few more bushels of money to set things right.
I am not inclined to give it to them until they start setting their priorities on academic education. What do you think? Click here to read on!

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!

I was going to post my thoughts on reducing expenditures and it appears my opponent has beaten me to the punch. I bring this up from the comments to this post as it pretty much says what I would post in this regard.
In comments, Kathleen says:
Bill,
Our primary fiscal problems are due to our inability to raise revenue each year of more than 2 1/2 percent to meet expenses which are rising more than 2 1/2 percent each year. This problem is State-wide and if it hasn't already, will effect all communities in the State of Massachusetts. In addition to this problems,our ability to raise revenue through new growth has leveled off.......
......Along with the many other measures the Selectboard has taken to deal with this financial crises, the Selectboard and Finance Committee have worked diligently to revamp how the financial business of the Town is conducted. One of these principles adopted by the Selectboard and the Finance Committee is to a more forward looking process of budgeting, looking at our projected revenue for years to come and bringing our projected expenditures in line with what that revenue will be. The problem is, under this analysis, and after cutting all that we possibly can cut, what will be reduced are some of the fundamental services the Town has historically offered. So, absent some intervention from the State to assist all Towns dealing with this financial crises, it will be up to the voter's in the Town to determine what services they would like to fund and what type of community they desire in the future.
Bold emphasis added by me
To which Bill T (me) replied,
Bravo, Kathleen! You have nailed it....
.....Now we need to set the priorities for what we will fund first and get to work on cutting the services with the lowest priority. We also need to let the townspeople know what the situation is in clear, unambiguous terms. The Finance Committee, Budget and Revenue Task Force, and others will be happy to lend credence to this effort, I am sure of that. Let's get started forthwith.
We cannot continue the current level of services without serial overrides or growth which the town doesn't want. The reverse budgeting process will aid us in our discussions by showing what we have to work with going forward. As the Select Board indicated at their last meeting, police have a higher priority than libraries. The Select Board needs to direct the administrators on the priorities to be considered in making these cuts. Let's focus on that in your Tuesday sessions. Will you commit to trying to move the board in that direction, Kathleen?
I am sure that neither Kathleen or I want to cut services. The unfortunate reality is that there is no choice. As I see it, the remaining choices are these. Do we cut the services, reconcile our expenses and revenue, and then restore those services later if and when we have the revenue, or do we pass overrides in the interim to maintain some services as we restructure our expenses to be in line with our revenue?
If we had had the tools in place, such as the foward looking budget process, or had heeded the lonely cries in the wilderness from the Finance Committee earlier, we may have been able to mitigate at least some of the coming pain. That's water over the dam now. Let's start our discussion of how to proceed in the comments below. Click here to read on!

"We have a revenue problem" ??????????

I have stated what Dartmouth's fiscal problem is and defined the cause of that problem (link here). Now let's look at the possible solutions to matching the rates of growth of expenses to revenues. There are two obvious remedies to reconcile the rates of growth. The first is to increase the rate of growth of revenues, the second is to reduce the rate of growth of expenditures.
Let's examine the first option, increasing the rate of growth of revenue. The lion's share of revenue raised by the town comes from real property taxes on existing homes and businesses. The addition of new homes and businesses (new growth) adds to the amount of taxes which can be assessed. However, state law limits the growth of the existing property tax base to 2-1/2% per year. So the rate of revenue increase is limited to 2-1/2% per year plus the amount of new growth. New growth revenue is added on top of the 2-1/2% increase of the existing tax base. It is important to note that the following year, revenue from properties that had been new growth are now included in the tax base and grows at 2-1/2% per year. In order to have and sustain a higher rate of revenue growth, the town must continually add more and more homes and businesses (or properties with higher and higher valuation). Dartmouth has seen revenue growth rates in the 5-7% range in the past but that rate of growth has slowed as the available buildable area is used up and the national economy slows. While the rate of new construction may pick up again in the future, it is difficult to predict the amount and timing of that increase. The town residents have also shown little interest in adopting policies to increase the amount of new growth.
Another means to increase revenue growth rate is for the voters to approve an override of the 2-1/2% provision of the state statute. This override vote is required to be a dollar amount that is added to the tax base. The dollar amount of the override is permanent. However once that dollar amount is added via an override, it also grows at only 2-1/2% per year. So you can get a one year increase in the rate of revenue growth by approving an override, but the next year you are back to 2-1/2%.
As you can see, the avenues available to increase the property tax revenue growth rate beyond 2-1/2% are to pass serial overrides or aggressively promote new growth in the town. The townspeople have shown little enthusiasm for overrides or increased growth, so I submit that increasing the rate of revenue growth is not a viable option for curing our fiscal crisis.
On a final note, it seems that some on our Select Board do not understand the root cause of our budget woes. At the last Select Board meeting, the chair person is quoted as stating, "We have a revenue problem". Link here to Chronicle article.
As I showed above and in the last paragraph of this post, increased revenue via an override is a short term solution. If a differential in the rates of spending and revenue exist and it does, expenses quickly overtake an override increase amount. Rather we need to examine and change the rate of growth of expenses to return to fiscal health. Our ability to change the rate of growth of revenue is limited as I have just shown. In a upcoming post, I will look at ways that expenditure growth rate can be changed.
As always, let me know if you find fault in my analysis or think that I've missed other ways to change the rate of revenue growth. Click on comments and have a go.

UPDATE I edited this post for clarity. The edits are in italics above. Click here to read on!