Okay, we skipped yesterday, kind of. Was also tempted to skip today, kind of. But there is a glitch in the old internal clock that just keeps it from adjusting to the time change. So it was either watch television or blog after breezing through the papers.
Speaking of which, the Fairhaven Neighborhood News has a report on the Monday meeting of the Fairhaven BPW. I note our town's BPW as given the issues in a neighboring community it might otherwise be difficult for some to determine which community is being discussed.
Some digest history. Enterprise funds established decades ago. At the time established, done so with the intent of making the same self-sufficient. Sewer I believe made it to that level back in the mid 1990s. Water prior thereto. Well at least until about 8 or so years ago.
At the time of established, also determine that the town charges for such services would be born through the funds.
Okay speed up to the present, and suggesting a solution to the tempest that should remain in a teapot.
Come town meeting, come time for the various motions, let the BPW propose that portion of the costs, associated or otherwise which it feels should be paid for through the general fund. Put it out there in full view and put it up to a vote.
Let us also put to rest the argument that associated costs are somehow a new charge from the "town" to the BPW. All one need do is review the yearly treasurer's letter sent out showing costs to be raised from the water and sewer enterprise funds, to understand it is not a new concept. The charge was not correct over the past eight years or so, but it is not new.
The lion's share of the blame on the issue rests with mistakes in calculations on the "town" side. So do we continue the mistake? Do we ignore the original intent? Do we compound the matter by disregarding other elements of the original intent? Do we continue to allow the gap to increase year after year?
Well, I for one have no problem with it if you go back to the body that established the intent and it is approved. I may not support the move, but if passed, well it will be what it will be.
What the board can be is the constituent advocates we keep hearing its members are elected to be. If that is what you feel your constituency wants, well make the motions on the floor and argue for passage.
Better yet, move to abolish the enterprises. Make everything a town obligation, but also town revenue. Jump into the same pool as everyone else, swim the same waters within the confines of prop. 2 1/2.
No one wanted to see the rates raised. Yet one might be able to suggest there were internal actions that could have been taken to lessen the impact. One could also even suggest other mistakes over say the past eight years where tight budget control, oversight and attention to detail cost extra spending of money that ended being eaten up that could have gone to offset rates.
Over the time period of miscalculation, numerous general fund articles were denied or postponed. Who knows, Town Meeting may want to continue that trend to subsidize enterprises. We won't know unless you ask for the relief you seem to feel is warranted.
Brew the contents in that teapot and see what ends up being poured out.
Moving on ...
In an attempt to disprove the fact that I cannot be classified as insane as defined by Einstein, I am again going to ask the question, What service/perk in town that you personally like/want or feel is needed would you be willing to see reduced or eliminated in order to balance a budget?
Note: Any comment even remotely appearing as a swipe against a personal "don't like/want/need" is not going to get published. Strict four corners on an answer to the question. Open line IS NOT in play today.
So think in terms of self-sacrifice as opposed to offering up a sacrificial lamb. I have enough alligators in my menagerie to cull the flock.
Questions of sanity aside, the other purpose of asking the above question again is to highlight the real difficulty faced in dealing with near infinite requests with finite resources. Say no to something and you are an uncaring, reactionary motivated by the mighty dollar. Say yes to something and you are a spendthrift with no long range thought as to the looming financial disaster (that can apply to the no also I suppose, well actually it has).
Based solely on personal preference, willingness to do without on a personal basis, and willing to live with some calculated risks, I and probably each one of you could come up with a budget that has this town running multi-million dollar surpluses, which I then personally would use to build a municipal golf course because that is something I want in town.
I can easily do without some town services, I am more than willing to run certain risks, especially if I can raise the money for the golf course. I also know however that not everyone will agree with what I am willing to risk or with what I can do without. No one though objects to building me a golf course though, do they?
Getting rid of what you don't want or need is easy. Convincing someone else to part with what they consider to be their treasure, well ...
Anyway, that's it for today. Stay dry and ...
Be safe.
Has no one so far offered any cuts you agree with? I agree with your comment a few days ago about not adding anything new. I wonder if recommendations will have to be made, and see where it flies at town meeting.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed bulk pickup. It evolved into an almost-major town event. When it was announced that it was going to be cut, I wondered if all of the big items would be dumped illegally. Apparently the alternative to holding 'bulk pickup day' is an adequate cost-saving alternative because we don't see excessive dumping.
Unfortunately cutting something all ready cut isn't giving something away that you presently have.
ReplyDeleteNeither is suggesting cuts to stuff you don't want/need/like responsive to the recent question.
Running over the comments for the past few days, identify to me what has been specifically proposed to be cut. The closest suggestion I found is to the effect that the state recommends a figure what are the arguments for more. If I missed something actually recommended, let me know.
I brought up bulk pickup as an example of a service that was useful, but ended without much ado. It's proof that cuts can be made and we adjust.
ReplyDeleteDo you consider owning 'historic buildings' for the sake of historical value a perk? If money was no object I'd like to see the town use the two former schools. But if something has to go there's other things that are more important to me.
Do I consider owning a historic building for the of historical value a perk? Not trying to avoid your question, but it would depend on the building.
DeleteI consider owning Town Hall much more than a perk. I do in fact see great significance to owning that building, and consider it along with the high school, the library and another building or two having great value to the town, both tangible and intangible.
Some buildings certainly would fall in that perk category if the intent is to retain, restore and maintain. Since money is in fact an object, the how to pay for it for the two former schools are certainly going to face some very stiff competition for a great many other things people feel more important.
That is the extent of the stretch of the four corners by the way. I all ready have another comment I am debating whether to publish or not, because it doesn't fall into the four corners and wants to turn today into a debate over your stance on "bulky item".
I was going to play along and suggest that the fleet of Police Interceptor SUVs is excessive and that we should move to a mix of sedans with maybe a couple of SUVs to save both initial cost and fuel cost. But after doing a little research, the SUV is only a couple of grand each over the Police Interceptor sedan, and a buck or so a day in additional fuel. So when you factor in New England driving conditions and the various advantages of the AWD SUV to the utility and safety of the force, the marginal additional cost seems well spent.
ReplyDeleteAnd that illustrates one of the challenges of budget cutting - some of the obvious cuts fall into the penny wise, pound foolish camp. Walking through the gorgeous new Wood school I could have chopped $500k in the blink of an eye - some things like a private bathroom in every K & 1st grade classroom, roving iPad carts and other niceties appear extravagant. But in a school built in 2013, most of these are exactly what a modern school should have.
We're over-taxed overall, yes, but go look at our surrounding towns and compare the property tax of your home and the like value in Acushnet, Rochester, Mattapoisette, and then compare the services provided by each town: we have a pretty good bargain in Fairhaven.
So we need to be frugal where we spend the most - town employee contracts and bennies - frugal, but not foolish to the point of loosing the talent; and frugal - cutting excesses without making jobs untenable and services unreliable. And then, maybe just for a moment, appreciate how well we have it in this pleasant little town.
Every rule has an exception. Your comment doesn't make the four corners, but was too good to pass on.
Delete