The Big Splash?

Part II of the Selectmen's meeting.

Finished watching the meeting.  Even managed to catch the little bit from the chair of the board about the Fin Com salary request.

No biggie.  Been thinking about giving the $1 back.  In Nearly 20 years of involvement with Fin Com as either a serious spectator or a member, I can remember only one brief period where there was an actual hire secretary.

Anyway, the later part of the meeting covered some votes on articles.  Some discussion on request, although very brief; and some verbalized thoughts on the revenue policy.

If I have been able to follow the audio correctly, the conservative revenue amount being proposed now stands at approximately $42.67 million, mid-range figure talked about is approximately $43.3 million, with the maximum revenue available for spending at $44.05 million.

Total requests for funding from the general fund are just under $44.2 million.

It is highly unlikely the maximum revenue figure will be used, primarily because it probably should be used.  It is based on the assumption we receive 100% of the governor's recommended aid, which is not likely to happen.

If you use the mid-range revenue, we are looking at +/- a $1.13 million shortfall based on revenue vs. requests.  If you use the conservative figure, it is a +/- $1.7 million shortfall.  

The first key to this whole process is going to be whether the selectmen, school committee and BPW decide to agree to negotiated raises for the unions.  All union contracts expire at the end of this fiscal year.  

I am going to note at this point that the projected deficits, as has been presented by the administration, contain an assumption that we will be giving a 1% raise.  

I will also note that some may have a few figures a tad different then these, and I mean a real tad, not a sarcastic tad.  That is because I am using different version of sheets of information that have changed, that started with lower and in some cases higher figures for some things.  I believe I have made the appropriate adjustments, and the bottom line is going to be pretty much the same.

If you assume that we need to curtail operating expenses then one must also follow a certain logic that reducing the work force, then providing a pay raise to the remaining work force is a bit counter productive from the service end of the bargain with the tax payer.  

Absolutely if someone wants to make the decision that we can do the same with less, explain how that is and I am willing to listen.  I think however you are going to find any such proposition made being based on how everyone else can do the same with less.

As to salaries, if there is an intent to not only freeze but reduce the amount of revenue percentage wise from various sources, it would seem the same intent should exists in the one area of operations where there is some significant control over, being salary costs.

If there is a compelling need to give out raises, than those raises have to be paid for within the existing structure and not by adding to it.  Simply put, it means lay-offs or leaving vacant positions unfilled, or a combination of both.  At least it seems that way to me.

Once actual decisions get made we can dive into the arguments for them.  In the meantime, making some personal assumptions, and a few guesses, I imagine that we can "trim" about $600 thousand from the request, the ones outside of article 4 that is, without breaking too much of a sweat.

Doing that, you are now in the range of +/- $535 thousand to $1.12 million shortfall.

Most of the remaining non No. 4 articles probably should be funded.  the ones you can possible eliminate with not ramifications other than not doing them are minimal, maybe $50k or less.  The rest at some point have to be done, and to simply at this point exist to spend solely on day to day operations doesn't make sense.

So, where do the remaining cuts come from?

Operation budgets of course.

As is the case year in and year out, the primary attempt remains to balance a budget by carving out chunks from the larger departments.  Natural tendency.  Easy in concept to do if one ignores the ramifications.

Before we pickup the scalpel, we first need to see what the other options might be.

I am guess we can pick up between a very conservative $50,000 to what could be $200,000.00 depending on the will of Town Meeting from operating budgets without slashing the salary side.

If the selectmen or town meeting wish to grab back the full associated costs from the water and sewer enterprises, than we can gain another +/- 200,000.00 over the mid-range.

Freeze the use of surplus revenue at the amount used (in the annual) in FY 2013 at the +/- $1.8 million, and we can pick up another +/- $109,000.00 over the mid-range.

If we are smart though we also subtract about $75,000.00 from the state aid proposal.  that's the amount that seems most dependent upon the governor's increased revenue plan, which isn't going to get fully implemented, at least that seems the consensus.

These are all things that can be done.  The point is should they be done.

Internally, the biggest problem faced in this town is a reluctance to believe in the numbers.  Let's face it, how many years has the sky been falling only to find out it didn't.  How many years have we been told that projected revenues were down significantly only to find out they weren't?  How many years have we seen constant changes to projected revenues during the course of the budget year, more often than not accompanied by "new" expenses to make up the difference?

The sky isn't falling, but in all honesty it needs to be braced up.

Simple reality is that spending on operations needs at a minimum to be frozen at some level.  The level is what is in debate.

Let me add something very important here.

I am completely and fully aware that what happens at town meeting can, and may very well have an impact on the town's bond rating.  It could be a positive or negative impact.

What happens at Town Meeting will also determine however the level or services to be provided next year, and most likely a good decade to follow.  That cannot be forgotten either.

If the bond rating is reduced, the debt exclusion cost will increase.  The questions that have to be asked and answered is what would be the likely fall in rating, and what is the expected dollar amount in cost.

The other issue is just what will be lost in the goal to protect the bond rating.  What is the impact both immediately and going forward to the services which can be provided.

Trust me when I tell you, every move that gets made has a ripple effect.  Some no bigger than that from a pebble in a pond, others as big as that of a boulder in a swimming pool.

Town Meeting will make the decision on the size of the rock to drop and where.  As long as its member have all the information, I can live with that.