Top 10 Reasons why an Underride is not good for Amesbury

10. Amesbury does not have $1 million in ‘excess levy’ for 2008, so this will mean budget cuts next year and every year beyond.

9. An under-ride will not reduce anyone’s property tax bill.

8. This punishes Amesbury’s good financial management by removing its financial flexibility.

7. Amesbury will carry this cut into the future, compounded every year.

6. An under-ride would wipe out our ability to cover unpredictable but unavoidable costs. (Between 2007 and 2008 budgets, the mandated special needs costs for schools increased by over $1.1 million or by 66%!)

5. Amesbury’s bond rating would likely go down if we passed an under-ride. An under-ride would cost Amesbury money in higher interest.

4. The under-ride proposal is not a citizen initiative but is the product of 3 Councilors: Tom Iacobucci (d5), the author, and Donna McClure (at-large) and Michelle Thone (d1).

3. The responsibility for managing and cutting the budget rests with the Council. (In June, the Council only cut 1/10^th of 1% from the current budget. Why are they proposing a 2% reduction for next year, without even knowing the consequences?)

2. The Council does not need an under-ride to control costs. That’s what deliberating and voting on the budget every year is for!

1. “The only other way to immediately and dramatically cut your taxes would be an under ride and I would not support an effort in that direction. I fear it would cripple our schools and hurt our community.” – Councilor Donna McClure, July 2006