Sunday, October 12, 2008
If Question 1 Passes
I just saw this website and the numbers are terrifying. If Question 1 passes, here's the estimated cuts to town services:
Detailed breakdown [of cuts to state aid]What's all this mean? If question 1 passes, we're screwed. I have a friend who recently said, "if passed, your chapter 70 problems would seem cute and simple." He was right. Vote no on 1.
Municipal
Public safety and other aid
Total aid: $1,842,843
Estimated cut: $1,192,774
Percent cut: 65%
Road/bridge construction and repair
Total aid: $233,901
Total cut: $151,392
Percent cut: 65%
Total municipal aid: $2,076,744
Total municipal aid cut: $1,344,165
Total Percent Cut: 65%
School district: Swampscott
General education aid (Chapter 70): $2,701,925
Estimated Ch. 70 cut: $2,701,925
Estimated Ch. 70 aid cut percent: 100%
Special education total aid: $440,738
Estimated cut: $285,266
Estimate percent of cut aid: 65%
Other aid, including grants (est.): $627,143
Estimated Cut: $401,634
Total estimated percent cut: 64%
Total state aid to schools: $3,769,806
Total estimated cut: $3,388,825
Percent of total estimated cut: 90%
Thursday, October 09, 2008
The Budget Mess and How to Solve It
[Update: I got some numbers mixed in up reading all the comments and articles at the Reporter -and things were actually more bleak than what I originally thought. I've updated the blog to reflect that. My apologies.]
Honestly, I'm not even going to link to the Reporter, and all the many budgetary articles (and sordid comments) that go along with it. We all know the budget problems - and they're not good.
Let's just deal with the facts:
Fact Number 1. We're facing a budget shortfall of around $1.3 million. That's a pretty hefty number, but not so huge that it can't be tackled in a way that can save this town's elementary schools - the one area on the MCAS where Swampscott scores among this state's elite.
Fact Number 2. The town unions voted against the GIC, which would have saved around $500,000 a year. That doesn't make them "greedy," just shortsighted. There are very real reasons for the union to vote against the GIC, but they still missed the bigger picture. It would have been a quid-pro-quo they could have collected on in the future, when times were better. Plus, it would have saved jobs. Most importantly, it may have healed the bad blood between the town, its elected officials, administration and teachers. That bad blood is making this entire town stink.
Fact Number 3. We're sitting on two properties worth approximately $5 million combined, along with several others that will be sold off. The sales can't be used on the general budget, but the property taxes they'll bring can be used for those purposes. How much will those property taxes be worth? If town meeting passes the recommendation, they'll be in excess of $500,000 - going a long way toward solving our fiscal woes. If Town Meeting doesn't pass the recommended plans, it will be just as damaging to the town as the town employees voting down the GIC.
Fact Number 4. If $1.3 million or something close to it is what it'll take to keep Hadley open, that's a few hundred dollars per taxpayer over an entire year. That's not a huge number to keep our integrity and maintain our record of elementary-level excellence. At worst, Swampscott is set to reach its fair share of Chapter 70 funds in two years - which will mean hundreds of thousands more in school spending. It won't be that much longer before the town will get the $500,000 annual income in property tax revenue from the Greenwood/Temple projects. This isn't a time for any nuclear options, such as closing Hadley, but rather it's a time to do what it takes to stay affloat - the metaphorical need to work overtime, not declare bankruptcy and foreclose on the house.
Conclusion: If we have to lay off a few town employees, we can always hire more in a few years, when our fiscal situation is better. We can't always open up a new school. That's the biggest reason there is to do whatever it takes to keep Hadley open.
It'll take some time to sell the town's vacant properties, but not so long that they couldn't make a difference in next year's budget (even if its number will be significantly reduced compared to what they'll bring in 5 years from now). That could help alleviate some of this pain, though only a small fraction. Thankfully, despite the the state's fiscal difficulties, our local aid won't go down in next year's budget - as politicians will be loathe to reduce municipal aid. All this means better days are ahead, but Swampscott needs vision and courage to get there.
Honestly, I'm not even going to link to the Reporter, and all the many budgetary articles (and sordid comments) that go along with it. We all know the budget problems - and they're not good.
Let's just deal with the facts:
Fact Number 1. We're facing a budget shortfall of around $1.3 million. That's a pretty hefty number, but not so huge that it can't be tackled in a way that can save this town's elementary schools - the one area on the MCAS where Swampscott scores among this state's elite.
Fact Number 2. The town unions voted against the GIC, which would have saved around $500,000 a year. That doesn't make them "greedy," just shortsighted. There are very real reasons for the union to vote against the GIC, but they still missed the bigger picture. It would have been a quid-pro-quo they could have collected on in the future, when times were better. Plus, it would have saved jobs. Most importantly, it may have healed the bad blood between the town, its elected officials, administration and teachers. That bad blood is making this entire town stink.
Fact Number 3. We're sitting on two properties worth approximately $5 million combined, along with several others that will be sold off. The sales can't be used on the general budget, but the property taxes they'll bring can be used for those purposes. How much will those property taxes be worth? If town meeting passes the recommendation, they'll be in excess of $500,000 - going a long way toward solving our fiscal woes. If Town Meeting doesn't pass the recommended plans, it will be just as damaging to the town as the town employees voting down the GIC.
Fact Number 4. If $1.3 million or something close to it is what it'll take to keep Hadley open, that's a few hundred dollars per taxpayer over an entire year. That's not a huge number to keep our integrity and maintain our record of elementary-level excellence. At worst, Swampscott is set to reach its fair share of Chapter 70 funds in two years - which will mean hundreds of thousands more in school spending. It won't be that much longer before the town will get the $500,000 annual income in property tax revenue from the Greenwood/Temple projects. This isn't a time for any nuclear options, such as closing Hadley, but rather it's a time to do what it takes to stay affloat - the metaphorical need to work overtime, not declare bankruptcy and foreclose on the house.
Conclusion: If we have to lay off a few town employees, we can always hire more in a few years, when our fiscal situation is better. We can't always open up a new school. That's the biggest reason there is to do whatever it takes to keep Hadley open.
It'll take some time to sell the town's vacant properties, but not so long that they couldn't make a difference in next year's budget (even if its number will be significantly reduced compared to what they'll bring in 5 years from now). That could help alleviate some of this pain, though only a small fraction. Thankfully, despite the the state's fiscal difficulties, our local aid won't go down in next year's budget - as politicians will be loathe to reduce municipal aid. All this means better days are ahead, but Swampscott needs vision and courage to get there.
Labels: budget, schools, taxes
Blaisdell's Debate Issue
There isn't going to be a debate for this district's state rep seat, though there were 4 or 5 in the special election just a few months ago, with the same candidates. The question is why? John Blaisdell, though he won't admit it now, made the reasoning crystal clear.
In today's Lynn Item:
In today's Lynn Item:
Blaisdell said it didn’t matter who generated the questions as long as the questions were “of substance” and candidates have an opportunity for rebuttal.Here's what he said in the same paper back in September:
If it's not a Lincoln-Douglas style debate then there will be no debate.So, which is it? If Blaisdell wanted a debate, he should have been willing to compromise much sooner than he did. It would have helped if he didn't try to use the debate as some sort of wedge or manufactured issue to score a few political points. This is not behavior befitting of a public official.
Labels: blaisdell
