There is a great distinction between having a goal, and the plan to execute that goal.
Nearly everyone wants to see spending constrained and reduced where possible. There are long term pressing needs to do so, that often get ignored, omitted or pushed aside.
The legal requirement to have a fully funded retirement plan by 2040. Seems like a long time away, but the ramifications of that law and the adopted funding schedule for meeting that legal requirement will be hitting home sooner, much sooner than that deadline.
I get this, I understand this. Indeed, fixed costs such as the mandated retirement one, along with health insurance, FICA (medicare tax), general liability insurance, and a host of other ones, are what requires a town to be ever vigilant about other costs of any size.
Guess what? Real vigilance is near impossible in a set-up where there is no co-ordination of effort nor authority to oversee. Sure, the various entities are empowered to a certain degree to make sure "vigilance" is applied. To a certain degree.
We continue to operate a system however where elected boards make decisions on politics rather than anything else.
I actually received a telephone call and an e-mail after Monday's selectmen's meeting wanting to know what the heck I am going to do about the school buildings. I am going to do nothing but look at the articles presented, and vote accordingly.
These buildings need to be disposed of. If any of the articles will accomplish that goal, so be it.
What disturbs me the most as an individual, as a citizen of the town, is there seems to be an agenda forming relative to the disposition. Don't get me wrong, I am all for getting a use to fit. I am not however for making the plan fit a particular single purpose goal.
What I am baffled about, clearly baffled about, is the "Oxford building" being placed on the back burner. You have to ask yourself why. A whole bunch of whys actually. The SNAFUs and glitches simply don't warrant back burner placement.
As far as the Roger's building, well people ought to seriously sit down and think out the long term ramifications of what their present preferred option may be.
As far as the Roger's building, well people ought to seriously sit down and think out the long term ramifications of what their present preferred option may be.
What we are seeing happening again, is the tail wagging the dog.
Agendas. There are plenty of agendas.
We are what, a year and a half post DOR report. We budget plans, components, suggestions being dealt with all over the place. Yet near complete silence on one potential aspect in the plan that would take a whole lot of the guess work year in and year out of the entire process.
If you have read the report, it should jump out from memory. If you haven't read it. Mentioning will only create a debate that will not, repeat not, be informed or beneficial to anyone.
By the way, tonight is the last candidates' night. At West Island. The best of the three events year in and year out. The closest thing to a real format beyond reproach, and a darn shame it is the last one in the year.
It is what it is, and this one has been the best of the three in the past.
Enough for today.
Be safe.
In the public sector, retirement packages/contracts have been broken by even some large, well known corporations. Retirees take the package available to them at retirement age, thinking they will have enough to live on, only to watch the actual contracted benefits be rescinded throughout their retirement years. Are the retirements we as a town have to plan for going to remain concrete? Personally, I'm not going to be sympathetic to public retirees if they're not, because it's time for everyone to share the burden and pain of living in this government-created economy.
ReplyDeleteAbout the schools, have material reclaim companies been called to inquire about what could be realized in the demolition of the school buildings? Of course, in the process, there may be demolition costs due to EPA regulations pertaining to asbestos removal and such. If the lots with the buildings are not of interest to buyers, maybe without they would be. Why should we pay to keep the buildings on life support for 3,4, or 5 years, only to find a buyer that wants the lot only?
I meant to start the above comment, In the "private sector...."
DeleteIn regards to the two former schools...What are we waiting for? Why are they not on the market already? Who in their right mind still thinks we should retain them? If so, how would we fund this? Bottom line as I see it...."sell now" and move on to resolving our next 'money pit' issue.
ReplyDeleteThe schools were a gift to the town,at no cost..If you sell we get pure profit minus selling expenses..If we keep beating around the bush the profit goes lower an lower.The replacements at these sites will be controlled by building permits etc..If this happens properly we should have no problems..Put them out to public bid an see were the chips fall..
ReplyDeleteNext time someone leaves a gift to the town, it would probably be best, before accepting it, for terms to be set regarding the perpetual handling of the gift.
ReplyDeleteIt would be nice to retain and use the buildings forever. But somewhere along the years the buildings were left to fall into disrepair and now we don't have the money to fix them. I'm sure if they had been kept up, that someone, somewhere would now have interest. It's fine to keep a chipped family heirloom although it may not have much value, BUT it's not costing you money to keep it. Unless something happens soon, we've got to let ours go.
This is another reason for funding a building maintenance account apart from department budgets.
ReplyDelete