Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Town Meeting, Night Two
Amazingly, Town Meeting accomplished all of its goals tonight, even if some of them were altered. Most of the night consisted of routine tasks that require votes every year and move quickly, but there were a few highlights for the night.
- Capital Expenditures: these are bonds that Town Meeting approves which don't require a Proposition 2 1/2 override. They have to be paid in ten years time, accrue interest mounted to the debt and are typically meant for minor and medium projects such as road repairs and new town vehicles. This year, there will be one new police car, a new roof for Clark, as well as some radios of the non FM variety for Police and Fire. Overall, Swampscott agreed to take on nearly $2 million more in debt of this variety.
- Debt Exclusions: a fairly new phenomenon in Mass Municipalities, this is the process of proposing one-time fees to voters that they can approve at the ballot box to fund specific projects, instead of creating the less transparent and more expensive Capital Expenditures. Taxes go up for one year to pay for the project(s), then they go back down the next. A brand-new concept for Swampscott, it truly harkens back to the days of early Colonial America, when New Englanders paid for things as they were needed. If a town needed a new bridge, for example, Town Meeting would assemble and vote on it. If it passed, a levy would be created to specifically pay for the project over the next year or two. After the project was paid for, the levy would end. When the British Government tried to move away from that system, the American Revolution began. [See Boston Tea Party.]
Obviously, the scale of operating society today is different - but the idea of having an election to raise local revenue for necessary expenditures on a one or two year basis, instead of issuing a bond and leaving it for future generations, is a noble one - not to mention both more democratic and transparent.
This year, assuming the Board of Selectmen approve the question, voters will be given the chance to vote for a one-time fee as part of their taxes that would cover a new fire engine, replacing the Fire Department's 1988 classic, as well as repave 12 of the worst roads across town. Town Meeting will pay for both either way, but if voters approve the Debt Exclusion, they'll save over $200,000 compared to paying for those items using bonds. The roads will collectively cost $150k and the Fire Truck $300k, costing the average voter an additional one-time fee of $58 in their property taxes, the savings of over $200,000 comes from not having to pay the interest on unnecessary bonds.
Editorial Note: Several Selectmen were afraid Debt Exclusions would be too confusing for voters -would it be seen as an override? And, if it would, would it prevent voters from approving the real override that will come either next year or the one after? Of course, that's a low opinion of voters given the fact that the Fire Truck will cost a one-time fee of $58 next year if passed at the ballot, or far more if they don't.
Instead of taking leadership on educating voters about the simplicity and transparency of this new process, several Selectmen sheepishly argued to just make them Capital Expenditures, the money savings be damned. That's a funny comment coming from that group, all of whom talk about being "creative" in looking for ways to save money. Isn't this a creative solution that at least merits a try? Selectmen should know all people want is a transparent government - to know where their money is going. Capital Expenditures is the antithesis to that: it's exactly the kind of thing people don't like about government. They're less transparent. They're debt towns will pay for a decade later and, in the long run, they cost way more money than paying for them up front. People don't have the chance to approve Capital Expenditures and often questionable items are included (such as text books). Convincing people there's a better way won't be difficult, but it will take leadership that the Board of Selectmen will have to grow into - to put it nicely. - The Town Building Oversight Committee. The night's second big event was approving the Town Building Oversight Committee's creation, discussed in yesterday's blog. Thankfully, a compromise was reached before Town Meeting's second night began. The Selectmen gave up the rights to make the committee an Advisory Committee in exchange for defining how the Committee will be comprised - which will include 7 members, one of which will come from the Town Finance Committee, the Board of Selectmen and the current Town Building Review Committee. Other members will be residents appointed by the Moderator and Selectmen. This committee will have authority to propose guidelines for what can be developed and built on the old Middle School, the Phillips Beach Ave Fire Station, the former Sr. Center and the Sewage Pumping Station on Highland Ave. A report on their findings is due no later than Nov. 15th, at which point Town Meeting reconvenes to take action.
- My Final Note: Voters should insist on being involved in the building oversight process. Go to the public meetings; its imperative committee members know how residents feel, making those the #1 priorities, even beyond land value and future property tax receipts. For most residents, surprising would be putting it mildly at just the taste of what could come given the Building Review Committee's report last night. Picture more than 40 units of luxury living on the old Temple Grounds, comprising at least four stories, or the core of the old Middle School's demolish in favor of two structures on the same property, with even more units than the Temple. Not pretty at all.
Especially in this soft residential market, Swampscott could use more commercial base - not residential. Wouldn't it make sense to at least explore the option of turning the old Temple site into quiet office space - after all, that couldn't be any busier thanTown Hall, located there for the past year. Office space will certainly be less busy than the former Temple.
None of this is to say the Review Committee's report didn't show promising results of what's to come - indeed, it was downright optimistic. One of their suggestions, for example, was to promote the idea of trimming the old Middle School back to it's historical original, a stunningly beautiful building. It may be too small for what developers would want, but definitely is the basis for a project Swampscott residents could be proud of.
The committee's best idea was to expand the use of our town's pumping station. Specifically, land could be cleared to add space for parking and Whale's Beach access, as well as a new police station. The best part is it collectively represents a strategy for improving Swampscott's downtown - highlighting Swampscott's connection to the beach. It could do the nearly moribund downtown a great deal of good, making the area somewhere Swampscott residents congregate, at least in warm weather.
However, all of the good ideas make it even more imperative that residents become involved (even good ideas can fail). The night's common theme among speakers: once these buildings are sold and changes made, there's no going back. This is a once-in-a-generation question for town residents; most communities wish they were this property rich, with options and tools to combat the difficult problems that arise. Town Meeting members in large numbers concur that it's important Swampscott consider what could happen in the future before we make rash decisions now, hence the creation of the new committee. But the answers to these questions don't rest solely in the members who will be appointed to the Building Oversight Committee. The answers come collectively, from town residents being engaged in the process and making sure the committee does right by the people of this town. If we don't become engaged, we'll get what we deserve - and the town may very well be worse off than we are now.
Labels: schools, Swampscott, taxes, town meeting, town politics
Comments:
<< Home
The town should also sell the C & L liquor store property it owns. It's crazy how this town can own property then rent it for a sweet deal to a liquor store who has been caught selling booze to underage children on several occasions. What is going to happen to the town when some underage kid kills someone after bying booze from C & L?
I agree that leasing the building to a liquor store, especially one that's been caught selling to minors, is a little strange - but I'm not sure I completely agree that the town should sell the land. Why? We may want it in the future. We also own the VFW Hall next door, meaning it's a fairly large lot. It's always a good idea to keep some space for utilitarian purposes down the road.
Lynnfield currently leases out a retired elementary school to a business, in case enrollment ever goes up again and it needs the space. They also just bought an entire golf course in the town's center, in case it ever needs a large swath of space for a new school, etc. Unfortunately, Swampscott will never be able to be that land-rich, but the principal remains intact. I agree we should eventually sell the Greenwood Ave middle school building, the Temple, and the old fire station - because it's space we don't need and will sell for a premium, given their location, but I think the town should keep the C/L + VFW lots, since they're next to each other and currently in use, as well as the old Machon and Sr. Center, because they're both in strategically important areas of the town and could be used for future purposes. Leasing them out until we know what we want to do with them makes sense.
Lynnfield currently leases out a retired elementary school to a business, in case enrollment ever goes up again and it needs the space. They also just bought an entire golf course in the town's center, in case it ever needs a large swath of space for a new school, etc. Unfortunately, Swampscott will never be able to be that land-rich, but the principal remains intact. I agree we should eventually sell the Greenwood Ave middle school building, the Temple, and the old fire station - because it's space we don't need and will sell for a premium, given their location, but I think the town should keep the C/L + VFW lots, since they're next to each other and currently in use, as well as the old Machon and Sr. Center, because they're both in strategically important areas of the town and could be used for future purposes. Leasing them out until we know what we want to do with them makes sense.
You are mistaken about debt exclusions. They can be bonded - it isn't necessarily just a one time expense. All a debt exclusion means is that it is excluded from the normal limits of Prop. 2 1/2, and that it is paid outside of the operating budget. You could have a 20 year bond that is excluded debt.
Perhaps that's correct, but I'm not aware of a single example of a town using it in that kind of way - while I am aware of plenty examples in which towns have used them to pay for something during that year, while eliminating that cost from taxes the next.
You're not paying that close attention then. Lots of towns use it for lots of purposes. It doesn't make sense to permanently raise the tax base to build a new school. Once it is paid for, the debt comes off.
That could very well be the case - and I absolutely agree that once debt is paid for, it should come off. But special attention should be paid to package this the right way, or suddenly people really *will* think a debt exclusion is the same thing as an override... when all we need is a new Fire Station and don't want to pay $1.50 when we could pay a dollar, so to speak.
Post a Comment
<< Home