The $1,000,000 underride measure was defeated 2155 'NO' to 1025 'YES' votes tonight! Thank you, Amesbury, for voting so decisively for responsible budget policy!
And thank you to the many, many folks who donated time, money, your good name, or your lawn to this effort. The Committee formed to defeat this measure was truly overwhelmed by the positive responses that we received in the 4 short weeks since we first met. The support made all the difference in getting out our messages quickly, thoroughly and successfully!
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Don't Be Confused by the Ballot Language!
Here is what you will see on election day.
VOTE NO on Question #4
Question #4 -- Binding
Shall the Town of Amesbury be required to reduce the amount of real estate and personal property taxes to be assessed for the fiscal year beginning July first, two thousand and eight by an amount equal to one million dollars ($1,000,000)?
Yes_____ NO______
VOTE NO on Question #4
Question #4 -- Binding
Shall the Town of Amesbury be required to reduce the amount of real estate and personal property taxes to be assessed for the fiscal year beginning July first, two thousand and eight by an amount equal to one million dollars ($1,000,000)?
Yes_____ NO______
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Why Put Our Own Back Against The Wall?
Amesbury is one of the few communities in the Commonwealth that does NOT levy property tax up to its allowed limit under Proposition 2 1/2. In 2007, 75% of the communities in the Commonwealth taxed at 99-100% of their allowable amount (according to the MA Municipal Association). It is especially notable that we're not taxing at our limit, given the dramatic reductions in State Aid (we lost 25% or $3,000,000 in Aid since 2000) (DOR website). We could speculate on the reasons why we have not had to tax to our limit despite this lose of revenue (e.g. good financial management, tax base growth) but that's another discussion.
Recent Boston Globe articles (in their 'Override Central' section) have chronicled the woes of communities jammed up against their levy limit. It's a depressing litany--closed school libraries, laid off teachers and public safety personnel, increased school fees, closed sports programs, closed senior centers, not replacing safety equipment. Compounding the problem of being up against the levy limit is that the vast majority of override votes fail (2/3 of them failed in 2006). Councilor McClure and Mayoral Candidate Alison Lindstrom have both said that we can always reverse the underride if we want but the facts contradict this assumption--it would be very difficult to undo this step, once taken.
Having excess levy has two enormous benefits for Amesbury. First and foremost, it buys us flexibility, the ability to respond to unforeseen or uncontrollable cost increases (think 'flood' or 'special education') without having to call for an override to do it. Second, it actually saves us money. If we wipe out our excess levy (which a $1M underride will do), we can count on having our bond rating go down. This is like having your credit rating go down. As Council Candidate Allen Neale has pointed out, a lower bond rating will increase the amount that we spend on bond interest, potentially costing us $100,000's a year in wasted interest payments.
In talking about the underride around town, I've used this basic analogy to personal finances. If you looked at your personal budget and thought "Gee, I need to cut my costs and save some money," would the first thing that you did be to go to your boss and ask if you could get a pay cut, please? No, you would first ask yourself "what can I cut from my expenses? and then "how much salary do I need to cover my costs (mortgage, heat, auto, etc)?" The current Council has asked "what can we cut" and only found 2 line items worth $52,000 to cut. Lowering our income (tax revenue) is meaningless without first asking what it actually costs us to deliver the services that we need to ourselves. It's terrible financial management.
So let's do ourselves a favor and approach our financial situation with common sense and prudence, keeping the hard-earned flexibility and good bond rating that we currently enjoy. We should be excited to have 'excess levy' room---it prevents us from being jammed against the wall.
Recent Boston Globe articles (in their 'Override Central' section) have chronicled the woes of communities jammed up against their levy limit. It's a depressing litany--closed school libraries, laid off teachers and public safety personnel, increased school fees, closed sports programs, closed senior centers, not replacing safety equipment. Compounding the problem of being up against the levy limit is that the vast majority of override votes fail (2/3 of them failed in 2006). Councilor McClure and Mayoral Candidate Alison Lindstrom have both said that we can always reverse the underride if we want but the facts contradict this assumption--it would be very difficult to undo this step, once taken.
Having excess levy has two enormous benefits for Amesbury. First and foremost, it buys us flexibility, the ability to respond to unforeseen or uncontrollable cost increases (think 'flood' or 'special education') without having to call for an override to do it. Second, it actually saves us money. If we wipe out our excess levy (which a $1M underride will do), we can count on having our bond rating go down. This is like having your credit rating go down. As Council Candidate Allen Neale has pointed out, a lower bond rating will increase the amount that we spend on bond interest, potentially costing us $100,000's a year in wasted interest payments.
In talking about the underride around town, I've used this basic analogy to personal finances. If you looked at your personal budget and thought "Gee, I need to cut my costs and save some money," would the first thing that you did be to go to your boss and ask if you could get a pay cut, please? No, you would first ask yourself "what can I cut from my expenses? and then "how much salary do I need to cover my costs (mortgage, heat, auto, etc)?" The current Council has asked "what can we cut" and only found 2 line items worth $52,000 to cut. Lowering our income (tax revenue) is meaningless without first asking what it actually costs us to deliver the services that we need to ourselves. It's terrible financial management.
So let's do ourselves a favor and approach our financial situation with common sense and prudence, keeping the hard-earned flexibility and good bond rating that we currently enjoy. We should be excited to have 'excess levy' room---it prevents us from being jammed against the wall.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Pt. 2 of Cable Discussion on Underride Airs Tonight on Channel 12
The local access show "All About Amesbury" will be airing the 2nd part of a discussion with Municipal Council Candidates Allen Neale and Jonathan Sherwood regarding the underride question tonight at 6:30 p.m. on Comcast Channel 12. The segment will be available for viewing on the internet at www.allaboutamesbury.net on Wednesday, 10/24.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Underride Will Undermine Capital Planning
Submitted by: William Parker
Amesbury’s Master Plan (2004) lays out a vision of what Amesbury should “look like in the next twenty years”. Action items are defined for the Plan Elements, including “Land Use” and “Infrastructure”. Short-, intermediate- and long-term goals define this vision.
Each element is categorized by time frame (Immediate, Near Term, Medium, Long Term and On-going) and is assigned a potential cost (Low, Medium or High) with Low less than $50,000 and High over $250,000. As with all good planning, there is recognition that investments in Amesbury’s future carries price tags.
Without question, the Infrastructure costs in the Master Plan are the big ones. Some significant Master Plan action items coming up:
• the library expansion or relocation
• relocation of the DPW yard
• expansion or relocation of the Fire Department
And we know that we’re facing costly improvements to our water infrastructure.
Good capital planning saves money over the long run, just like making sure you are prepared to pay for a new roof on your house when you need it. It takes well-planned investments to improve and expand Amesbury’s resources. An underride as big as the one on our ballot would dramatically hamper our ability to make these investments and follow our Master Plan. The current council has made much about being fiscal watchdogs but good financial management means knowing how to plan well.
Amesbury’s Master Plan (2004) lays out a vision of what Amesbury should “look like in the next twenty years”. Action items are defined for the Plan Elements, including “Land Use” and “Infrastructure”. Short-, intermediate- and long-term goals define this vision.
Each element is categorized by time frame (Immediate, Near Term, Medium, Long Term and On-going) and is assigned a potential cost (Low, Medium or High) with Low less than $50,000 and High over $250,000. As with all good planning, there is recognition that investments in Amesbury’s future carries price tags.
Without question, the Infrastructure costs in the Master Plan are the big ones. Some significant Master Plan action items coming up:
• the library expansion or relocation
• relocation of the DPW yard
• expansion or relocation of the Fire Department
And we know that we’re facing costly improvements to our water infrastructure.
Good capital planning saves money over the long run, just like making sure you are prepared to pay for a new roof on your house when you need it. It takes well-planned investments to improve and expand Amesbury’s resources. An underride as big as the one on our ballot would dramatically hamper our ability to make these investments and follow our Master Plan. The current council has made much about being fiscal watchdogs but good financial management means knowing how to plan well.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
What Happened in Dennis and Gill—Two Underride Case Studies
Dennis
In September of 2003 the town of Dennis, by Special Town Election voted in favor of an underride. This was in direct response to a Proposition 2 1/2 Override of $176,000 that was passed for the Cape Cod School Budget at the Special Town Meeting in June. It turned out that the amount was not needed for the school’s budget.
In a showing of good faith to taxpayers by the Board of Selectmen, acknowledging that the town many times in the past had diverted money to the schools; they agreed to put forth the underride. It was understood that by voting for an underride would only return the town to its original levy amount and that schools or other town services would not be damaged in the process.
Gill
In 2003 the town of Gill passed an override. It was minimal, the excess would equate to approximately .12 cents for every thousand dollars of value on the tax rate.
In 2003 Gill placed a condition on the salaries of town employees tying their COLA increase to the COLA granted in the Gill-Montague teachers’ contract. The teachers’ contract was ratified, and while it included an increase in salaries, it was not specifically designated as a COLA increase and therefore town employees received no increase. Select Board members felt that was not the intent of the voters and placed a question on the special town meeting to allow the 3% increase that was raised by taxation to go to town employees.
At that same meeting the town also decided that an underride reducing the levy limit by that same dollar amount, would be put to the voters at the annual election in May 2004 to correct the error when the teachers’ contracts were ratified. The amount of the reduction was PLANNED to equal the number by which the Gill-Montague FY04 budget was reduced after the override passed in 2003, $10,833.
In both cases, unlike the Amesbury underride question-where the Council Majority willy-nilly picked a number ($1 million) to go to the ballot—the towns of Gill and Dennis actually used an UNDERRIDE in response to an earlier OVERRIDE attached to results identified for the voters.
Sound familiar? See these previous blog entries:
http://nounderride.blogspot.com/2007/10/look-at-other-underrides-1-upton-in.html
http://nounderride.blogspot.com/2007/10/amesburys-underride-would-be-one-of.html
In September of 2003 the town of Dennis, by Special Town Election voted in favor of an underride. This was in direct response to a Proposition 2 1/2 Override of $176,000 that was passed for the Cape Cod School Budget at the Special Town Meeting in June. It turned out that the amount was not needed for the school’s budget.
In a showing of good faith to taxpayers by the Board of Selectmen, acknowledging that the town many times in the past had diverted money to the schools; they agreed to put forth the underride. It was understood that by voting for an underride would only return the town to its original levy amount and that schools or other town services would not be damaged in the process.
Gill
In 2003 the town of Gill passed an override. It was minimal, the excess would equate to approximately .12 cents for every thousand dollars of value on the tax rate.
In 2003 Gill placed a condition on the salaries of town employees tying their COLA increase to the COLA granted in the Gill-Montague teachers’ contract. The teachers’ contract was ratified, and while it included an increase in salaries, it was not specifically designated as a COLA increase and therefore town employees received no increase. Select Board members felt that was not the intent of the voters and placed a question on the special town meeting to allow the 3% increase that was raised by taxation to go to town employees.
At that same meeting the town also decided that an underride reducing the levy limit by that same dollar amount, would be put to the voters at the annual election in May 2004 to correct the error when the teachers’ contracts were ratified. The amount of the reduction was PLANNED to equal the number by which the Gill-Montague FY04 budget was reduced after the override passed in 2003, $10,833.
In both cases, unlike the Amesbury underride question-where the Council Majority willy-nilly picked a number ($1 million) to go to the ballot—the towns of Gill and Dennis actually used an UNDERRIDE in response to an earlier OVERRIDE attached to results identified for the voters.
Sound familiar? See these previous blog entries:
http://nounderride.blogspot.com/2007/10/look-at-other-underrides-1-upton-in.html
http://nounderride.blogspot.com/2007/10/amesburys-underride-would-be-one-of.html
Friday, October 12, 2007
A Look At Other Underrides - #1- Upton in 2001
An underride has been used only 13 times since Proposition 2 1/2 was enacted. It's a fair question--what led those other communities to reduce their levy limit? The answers are instructive to Amesbury.
In 2001, the Town of Upton approved an underride for $143,477. Why? Previously, the Town had approved an override worth more then that for the construction of new school facilities. (In fact, Upton had resorted to overrides more than once before this to pay for capital and school costs that outran the allowed levy limit.) The school project came in costing less than expected. The underride was enacted to withdraw that unexpected savings from the overall tax base and return the base to a lower level.
This underride, then, was a reasonable action for the responsible management of Town finances. It was tied to specific circumstances that allowed the community to judge that it had clear excess capacity tied to a previous override and that removing that capacity would not affect services. This is in contrast to Amesbury's proposed underride, which has not been connected to clear consequences by its supporters.
In 2001, the Town of Upton approved an underride for $143,477. Why? Previously, the Town had approved an override worth more then that for the construction of new school facilities. (In fact, Upton had resorted to overrides more than once before this to pay for capital and school costs that outran the allowed levy limit.) The school project came in costing less than expected. The underride was enacted to withdraw that unexpected savings from the overall tax base and return the base to a lower level.
This underride, then, was a reasonable action for the responsible management of Town finances. It was tied to specific circumstances that allowed the community to judge that it had clear excess capacity tied to a previous override and that removing that capacity would not affect services. This is in contrast to Amesbury's proposed underride, which has not been connected to clear consequences by its supporters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
