The Massachusetts Municipal Association has called on the leadership of the state legislature, the General Court, to issue a resolution detailing the amount of state aid that cities and towns are likely to receive in the upcoming budget.
LOCAL AID RESOLUTION NEEDED NOW!
Please Call Your Legislators Today and Ask for Action in March
Cities and towns are working hard to prepare their fiscal 2012 budgets, facing extremely difficult funding decisions and clear fiscal distress. With the state facing a $1.8 billion budget crisis of its own, the Governor and Legislature have already announced that their own spending plan will bring a fourth straight year of local aid cuts. Communities cannot make timely and informed decisions unless Legislators let local officials know as early as possible what the minimum level of local aid will be for fiscal 2012.
Last year, House and Senate leadership released a special “statement” on March 12 announcing minimum levels of municipal and school aid prior to any legislative budget debate. In 2009, both branches approved Local Aid Resolutions before the budget debate. This year, legislators have started to warn local officials not to count on the Governor’s local aid numbers released in January and to anticipate deeper cuts. The House and Senate budget committees wrapped up hearings on the Governor’s budget on March 4, and the House is expected to release a budget bill in mid-April. Cities and towns cannot afford to wait four weeks to learn what Beacon Hill is contemplating regarding local aid levels. It is time for both branches to tell cities and towns what to expect!
The Legislature faces a difficult task in balancing the state’s fiscal 2012 operating budget. Even though tax collections are forecast to grow by $741 million next year, the temporary federal revenues used over the past three years are nearly exhausted and state Medicaid cost trends are more than eclipsing all revenue growth. The Legislature has been evaluating the measures proposed by the Governor ...
...in January to balance the budget, including his aggressive savings initiatives in health programs, spending cuts and new revenues. None of them are easy or popular.
Please call your Representatives and Senators today and tell them that a Local Aid Resolution or statement is needed NOW to help prepare municipal budgets and to inform local decisions on spending. Remind them that you face your own set of difficult choices about program funding, staffing levels and raising revenues. Tell them about the choices your community is facing. Without a formal local aid notice that commits to a basic level of local aid, final numbers may be delayed until the Legislature votes a fiscal 2012 budget bill sometime in June. Please let your Legislators know that this is too late and that minimum municipal and school aid numbers are needed today!
If you value good government, call or email Representative Chris Markey and Senator Mark Montigny and ask them to pass a local aid resolution.
The continuing shortfall of revenue makes this a very challenging year. Dartmouth managers and decision makers need to know what they have to work with. You can help by clicking the links associated with our state legislators names above and ask for enactment of a local aid resolution
Posts
25 comments:
As you are obviously aware Mr. Trimble, this is not a short term problem. Dartmouth needs to assume a worst case scenario as part of its financial planning. That is not to say that will happen, however, we need to understand what our options would be in that scenario.
A best case, a most likely case, and the aforementioned worst case scenario format often works well in financial planning during difficult times. The primary variable is state assistance, of course.
Clearly this is the primary responsibility of Mr. Barnes and the Finance Committee.
Let’s see how they do with this.
It's the formula stupid.
Massachusetts has 351 cities/towns that depend on state aid. This is where the rubber meets the road. For many of the lefties that love to take from the working rich and give to the no want too.
Do you understand the state formula? It provides more money to cities/towns that have a large population of minorities and not want too's. Dartmouth is considered a rich, white, affluent town, so you receive LESS money from the state. It's all based on need. Dartmouth rich folks can afford to pay more money in taxes, so Dartmouth receives less money from state aid. Our population percentage of minority/ African black Americans is less than one percent. Why do minorities chose not to live in Dartmouth?Because some don't want too.
The state cherry sheet is designed to provide cities, such as New Bedford, with more money based on the medium income. Dartmouth home owners have a higher income average, so we receive less money. More poverty, more money. Take from the have and give to the no want too's. New Bedford will always show a higher poverty level. It's the MONEY stupid.
My thoughts on how to increase the state aid formula for Dartmouth is to force Dartmouth schools to provide education to minorities from New Bedford. Do you remember forced busing? We can send our students to New Bedford schools and Dartmouth can provide for a percentage of minorities from New Bedford. Hmmm just a thought.
Why should any of them give a tinker's damn? Do nothing Deval is too busy looking for his next gig, the legislature would rather dither and sponsor more wasteful legislation, or better throw out the casino gambit again. Medicair costs skyrocketing? So what. We're too busy making sure everyone in the commonwealth gets free healthcare while the camel's back breaks under the load. Why not just make up the town's budget - the state does little more than that anyway.
Our selectmen are saying that they can not complete a required town balanced budget until the town knows how much money shall be provided by the state to support town programs. The state is required to provide a balanced state budget. The town of Dartmouth is required to provide a town balance budget. Anyone who understands politics also understand that the state spends much money on programs that deliver votes. It appears that our town works by the same rules.
Dartmouth selectmen voted to allow funding for a full day kindergarten school program that we can not afford. A full day grade K program is a nice thing to have, but the question is can we provide the money for the long term. The new grade K program forced our town to reopen the Cushman school, install a state required elevator, and much more needed spending to bring the building up to code.
Our selectmen supported the playground project for the new grade K children, at a sum of money that we can not afford. Am I the only person to notice that our country is in a fiscal unknown? Our state is begging for additional federal money. The fed's have borrowed money from our children children to the tune of 14.8 trillion dollars. DARTMOUTH IS IN A SITUATION OF UNKNOWN STATE FUNDING. What is wrong with this picture. The selectmen are now saying we need to spend less or lay people off. Can't afford to provide health care, or support retirement funding.
My wife and older children are packing the car for our last ski trip so I've got to end this quickly. HAVE YOU HEARD THAT OUR PREZ ALLOWED AN ATTACK ON LIBYA......EACH MISSILE COST 1.8 MILLION DOLLARS. MAYBE HE CAN SEND ONE TO DARTMOUTH AND WE CAN SELL IT TO GADHAFI FOR 1 MILLION.
To: March 22, 2011 4:50 PM
Re: It's the formula stupid.
Perhaps you wrote this piece while looking at yourself in the mirror.
Busing kids to New Bedford? Brilliant idea. Maybe not.
Re: So it is all about minorities? I guess we can classify you as a racist as well.
Some minorities choose to not live in Dartmouth is your point? Too complicated for you to realize they may not be able to afford to live here?
The state has a number of formulas that affect the taxpayer in Dartmouth. Many can be construed as unfair on a per capita basis. So whether it is state aid formulas or dividing up the cost of regional school costs, the reality is more affluent communities have always been forced to pick up more of the tab themselves.
Now see if you absorb this basic point. There is simply less money available in our state, much as most other states. Unlikely to be a short term issue either. Get used to it. That is the real problem.
March 22 @ 4:50 PM
You made a few brainless liberal related comments that need correcting. You cry out by calling me a racist, but the fast majority of the working class people are fed up with this type of name calling. They are also fed up with minorities who collect welfare checks, and their family is a third, and fourth generation welfare recipient. Most, if not all these programs, started with Prez Johnson. If you are not old enough to remember him, he is the prez who told the American people that he would never put U.S. Troops in South East Asia to fight a ground war. Lier, lier, lier. He sent over 500,000 hundred thousand soldiers to fight or die in a war that ended with Prez Nixon.
The purpose of mentioning this war is to educated people like you to the fact that back in the days, most U.S. troops were sons of minorities, and the blue caller workers. All others had some excuse for not serving their country.
My post, concerning minorities is not a put down, or pointing a finger at any one nationality (s) it is a fact that cities attract more minorities because of the location of housing, as it relates to larger groups of one nationality living together, and share in their blithe.
I am willing to pay a little more money in state tax, then to see so many state/town/city services diminished, or discontinued. The state government needs to spend less tax money, but not on the backs of the poor. There is quiet a difference between monorities, and being poor.
Snake oil politics....did you vote for Obama?
Our Prez took G.W. Bush to the wood shed for invading Iraq. Where are the WMD ? Now Prez Obama is using American fighting men to attack Libya and rid the world of a killer dictator. Prez Obama told the world we can not allow a dictator to kill his own people. How many Libyan people have we killed with our no fly zone. Who are we to say what another country can or can not do? This Prez has signed a secret document allowing weapons to be sold to the opposition people. Who are these people? Why are we involving our fighting force to be engaged in another middle east war with another middle east country?
Prez Obama needs to be taken to the wood shed.
The Vietnam War ended in April, 1975, when we evacuated Saigon with our tails between our legs. The President at that time was Ford, not Nixon. Back on topic, perhaps the safest route for towns like Dartmouth to take would be to develop a budget assuming 0 dollars from the state. Live below your means--the new American Dream. The current state of affairs is a kind of trickle down economics. The state must balance its budget by making cuts, and one of those cuts is to cities and towns, which also must balance their budgets by making cuts. Live below your means Dartmouth.
@ 10:21
In case you don't realize this the money that gets doled out by the state to cities and towns is OUR money. I for one want it to come back to Dartmouth and will not simply give it away so we can live below our means.
April 1 @ 10:21 PM
Start off at 0 balance and live within your means.
WHAT...did you say?? Where have you been these last few decades.?? We the people didn't cause this gigantic fiscal mess. All this started with the federal government and the people elected to serve us on the state/federal level. You should read a book called “term limits” it's rather interesting, but illegal to do. This issue is a democrat, republican, addiction to spending too much money, and when it is not enough they continue to spend more money, creating the largest debt ever...14.8 trillion dollars in debt. The federal government is the biggest money spender. The state is also intoxicated with spending monies and establishing laws that mandate cities/towns to fund programs for education with a broken promise to fund the educational mandated programs they legislate. The state is running short of revenues....this is the problem....to much spending on programs and failure to provide monies when times are tough. It's rather simple to understand....stop spending money.
As a town meeting member, I am planning a NO vote on all town expenditures. Shut this town down. If a majority of town meeting members did the same thing we can stop Dartmouth from spending money and turn the town over to the state. Nothing to lose!
Lara Stone and Michael Watson are up for re-election in 2012. The next chairman should be some one who is not running for re-election. Have Mr. Trimble serve another term as chairman, or hand it over to Joe Michaud.
It was okay for Trimble to serve as chairman during his re-election year and for Michaud to serve as chair during his re-election year last year. But it is not right for either Stone or Watson to serve as chair?
I think it is in the best interest of the taxpayer in Dartmouth to NOT have Mr. Watson, Mr. McDonald, or Ms. Stone as Chair of the SB.
It is very clear to me that Mr. Michaud and Mr. Trimble "get it" as far as the economic realities that face us all today.
Some very courageous decisions have been made over the last several years to protect the taxpayer, town employees, and vital town services.
Almost all done in reasonable and financially responsible ways.
Perhaps a recent failure that I would like to cite is not agreeing to look elsewhere for insurance representation despite the strong attempt by Mr. Trimble to do. What part of "why do we always have to sue to get coverage" does the majority of the SB not understand? Ergo, my concern about the majority that favored retention and continuity of this agency.
I trust that this is not the start of a new trend back to the way it was?
The government avoided a shutdown. The unions for the municipal workers in Providence made some major concessions to alleviate that city's financial crisis.
Here in Dartmouth, though, we have Mr. "Modest Amount" Watson arrogantly persuading Town Meeting members to vote town employees a raise and a significant number of Town Meeting members too soft or too short-sighted to oppose him.
When will Town Meeting members figure out that every "modest amount" and every "relatively small amount" as advocated by Mr. Watson over his two years on the Select Board eventually add up to a larger amount, one that they can obviously not envision in the long term?
That's how you start saving, one penny at a time. Isn't that what we were taught? That penny - - in our case, that dollar - - can add up very quickly and when it flies out of our pockets as readily as Town Meeting has let it, it is surely not a savings - - to us, at least.
Too bad we listen to some of the Select Board and ignore the warnings of those who truly have the financial pulse of the town and its future - - our past and present Fiancance Committee members.
How could it be "so clear" about the economic realities when Trimble and Michaud disagreed over the pay increase? Bill, didn't you vote with the other three members to approve the new contracts?
Watson and Stone are two of the biggest money spenders. Michaud and Trimble are two of the biggest reason why everlasting contracts are no longer the norm. Dartmouth had it's wake up call. It won't be long before Watson and Stone will put our town into fiscal free fall. Increase salaries for town employee's, teachers are Stones best pet's. She ran for selectman so as to reopen the Cushman school and promote full day kindergarten. We ended up with both, and also a million dollar playground. I want to see Watson as chairman, only if it helps to keep him quiet. This guy can talk a hungry dog off of a meat wagon.
With respect to the chairperson of the Select Board, I believe it is the custom, if not a bylaw, that the individual up for reelection the upcoming year gets to be chairman. That would mean Mr. Watson or Ms. Stone will vie for that title.
If you may remember, last year after elections, Ms. Stone attempted to nominate Mr. Watson to be chair, and Mr. Trimble had to step in and correct her misdirection. It was his role to be chairperson since, at that time, he was in his third year as a Board member.
Traditionally, during difficult financial times in the private sector, companies place great reliance on their financial people to identify and quantify problems, work with top management to quantify potential improvements, and keep top management informed on a current basis.
Municipalities should be reacting in the same ways as the private sector.
In many ways, this requires major changes in how the municipal finance functions are conducted.
I would suggest that the SB and the general public keep in mind that certain SB members have little in the way of a meaningful background in finance. That in itself should not disqualify their opinions as uniformed; however, those opinions presented without appropriate supporting financial backup should be regarded as what they are. That is unsubstantiated and, possibly, dangerous to the taxpayer.
The solution is a more proactive finance function within the town structure and a closer reliance to the Finance Committee for planning.
The potential for this may well be there. Let's see if happens.
Recently, Mr. Barnes presented the statement that "we don't really owe $53 million for health benefit retirement costs, this is only an estimate".
Pop, pop, fizz, fizz, oh what a relief that is.
Then Mr. Barnes takes the position that "Dartmouth is better off than the 50 other largest communities in Massachusetts" for lack of funding for future liabilities.
We must all have slept well with that thought in mind.
Mr. Barnes's comment that in effect "we don't have a problem at this time" should further cause concern to the taxpayers.
These are precise examples of what is wrong with municipal accounting in terms of lack of procedures and proper planning. This is why I question whether someone who has demonstrated skills at doing municipal accounting such as it is is by definition, the wrong person for the job here in Dartmouth.
Everyone here trys to sound like a Harvard professor. THe sentance structure is so archane and stilted. Where does this come from? Is it an afectation to make one's comments seem intelligent? Just sayin'
Well, I'm glad I wasn't the only one who questioned those comments from Mr. Barnes. I have to say, they made me sit up and take notice.
We don't need platitudes. We don't need the financial issues swept under the rug or given less than the importance they demand. They are not going away anytime soon.
We don't need to be given a false sense of security.
We have lived through enough of the "All's well in Dartmouth" for so long already. We can't afford smokescreens that cloud the reality of our financial status, most especially our future financial status.
To say we are in the same boat or even somewhat better off than most of the other communities just does not cut it. We still have the financial problems and we still have to solve them.
Are we supposed to put blinders on here? Maybe some people would like us to do just that as they continue to spend our money or exhibit such little concern for the expenses of the taxpayer.
And, why are Town Meeting members so eager to spend our money? I think our financial climate calls for a little restraint here. No wonder everyone has his or hand out for the money; it's practically a shoo-in that they will get it if you look at the past record of Town Meeting and the willingness on the part of some of our current Select Board members to spend, spend, spend.
Let's not let ourselves be brainwashed to believe that "all is well" here in Town with respect to our financial obligations.
Let's not hear just what we would like to hear or what someone else would like us to hear. Let's not kid ourselves.
"The solution is a more proactive finance function within the town structure and a closer reliance to the Finance Committee for planning.
The potential for this may well be there. Let's see if happens."
April 11, 2011 10:45 AM
The problem is that anyone with any solid knowledge and genuine concern for the taxpayer who foots the Town's expenses is not often listened to, no matter how many people recognize and respect the veracity and sincerity of the individual in question.
I think the fault here is not necessarily with board, committee, and department members who ask for and/or approve the expenditure to appear on the town warrant for Town Meeting members to vote on, although there appears to be some individuals whose hands are out when the word "money" is even mentioned.
I think much of the blame - - or maybe the final blame - - is on the shoulders of the Town Meeting members who, from past voting, appear to blindly accept anyone who can smooth talk them into believing that their expenditure request is valid and for the benefit of the entire community, and that includes certain Select Board members.
Common sense seems to fly out the window in the face of these slick talkers who can stand in front of the crowd and deliver a persuasive enough speech to wheedle money ill-spent in the long run from Town Meeting members who blindly hop on the bandwagon with no thought to the future of our finances and even less thought for the taxpayers who will be saddled with paying the bill, and for years to come.
April 14 @ 10:44 AM
Well said..... I have been questioning the motives of town meeting elected members for some time and finally a clear messages has been made. One of many examples of town meeting spending with out questioning was the 750,000 thousand dollars spending spree by town meeting to fix up the old stone barn in Dartmouth, owned and controlled by the state Audubon society. Most, if not all town meeting members, have no clue where or how to locate the old stone barn. The CPA members are appointed by the selectmen for the purpose of approving and spending money. They have a snake oil spokesperson who make a presentation and the funding is approved by town meeting. The CPA is allowed to spend money and borrow when needed. Does this sound familiar??Go figure.
Your right about Mr Barnes, but you need to add that we also have some really dumb selectmen,town administator, and Director of Development Ms Wender compounding the town's problems. When the rest of the town wakes up to these facts it will be to late.
I see this blog is degenerating to the old anonymous attack but give no solutions mode again. I always enjoy a good jab at someone's policy along with a spirited different point of view but the last couple of posters are pretty lame. It's the old point of view that everyone who works in town government(often times for no compensation) is bad and the world will end because of it. Boy, that's an easy thing to espouse.
Post a Comment