How do you like your porridge?

Thursday's post had a couple of comments that I think merit some discussion.

The first comment ended with a very interesting question:

How many more phones, or vehicles, or offices, or employees do we have to have today v.s. 10 or 15 or 20 years ago?

If we were talking about the private sector, the answer would be obvious, wouldn't it?.

The second comment:

Wait until the costs of services reach a point where people are unwilling or unable to pay more (i.e. an increase in taxes) for them. Then the 'demand' will have to go down. When that happens, the town can decrease items related to that service.

You are about five years away from that scenario. Absent significant changes in OPEB costs and benefits, further changes in health care costs and benefits, and the general insurance aspects, you are going to see the coffers emptied.

As an example, FY 2015 funding for the retirement plan will be $2,548,729. FY 2019 it will be $3,009,098. Assuming the market doesn't tank again, assuming, well a whole bunch of assumption that will keep the cost down.  That is a 15.3% increase for a fixed cost. One that will eat up a guesstimated 25% of the prop  2 and 1/2 increase for that year.

Now to be fair, in twenty years the annual projection for this cost is it will be actually be a 1/2 a million less than the amount for next year.  In the interim however, to get to a yearly amortization of about $2 million, it will continue to rise until in the FY 2032 it will be just a hair under $5,200,000.00.

Again these figures are based on assumptions, but the assumptions revolve around estimated salary, market return, benefits to be paid.  The type of assumptions that when the market crashed in 2008, costs the fund millions and millions in equity. A crash that wiped out the substantial gains while the market was flying high.  

While we all hope to never see a crash of that magnitude again in our lifetime, do you expect to go the next 20 years without more downturns?

The simple fact is no one is out there projecting a robust and high flying economy. We are told we have recovered in that aspect.  If you define recovery as the fall having ended and you are now on the ladder to climb out of the hole you fell into, than yes we have recovered.

Health Insurance. Does anyone expect that not to go up 15% over a four or five year period? Same with general insurance. Same with everything else.

Everyone wants certain things. Unfortunately not everyone wants the same things.  When your primary revenues have a cap limit on increases, and the remainder of you revenue is dependent on the largess of the state and federal government, unless your expense increases do not exceed your revenue increase sooner or later you end up in the hole.  

You are much closer to having to decide what you are willing to pay for than you think folks.

The third comment:

Well! if you ask the police why they have 30 officers they will tell you that a town of this size by state standards have this compliment.Even if you had low crime rates etc.The unions then contract in minimum staffing levels to keep this compliment intact.Of course the schools have a similar student teacher ratio they try to keep.Only god knows why our DPW has the compliment of a nearby town with 1/2 the amount of road miles.

I for one do not believe our police force is over staffed. One of the primary reasons for a low crime rate, especially for a "suburban" town abutting an "urban" area is in fact an adequate police presence.  The irony of the argument implied in the comment, is we have seen comments from others in the past complaining about insufficient police presence. 

You can have as many officers, or as few, as you wish.  The issue becomes what is deemed adequate.  I have been around long enough to know what understaffed can do.  At a time when the traffic flow was no where near what it was.  When the issues weren't as complicated and the procedures and protocol required were no where near as stringent or time consuming.

It is my own opinion but I do not believe the police force is over staffed. We can have the Goldilocks argument over whether it is too hot or too cold or just right.  I do not think it is scalding or freezing. I think it is a matter of preference as to whether it needs to be heated up a bit or cooled down a tad.

As a note, and I may be wrong on this, the police department does not have a minimum staffing requirement in the contract.  As I said, I could be wrong. 

Some departments do have minimum"staffing" in the sense the law requires certain people with certain licenses to be employed and on duty.

The only contractual obligations for minimum staffing that I am aware of are the schools, and only really kind of, as it is my understanding the "staffing" relates to the mention of classroom sizes and my further understanding that these are target goals and are flexible and not absolutes; and, the fire department.  

Indeed there was a time when I in fact had a say in the matter for minimum staffing in the fire department and I refused to agree to such a provision.  Got me a nice letter from the union published in the newspaper way back when.  

As to the DPW portion of the comment. Without specific mention of what town you are comparing us to, I will only say staffing is related to desired levels of service, and not only ability but willingness to pay.

Let me known though.  Maybe it will be worth some attention.

With that said however I need to turn my attentions elsewhere for today.

Be safe.