| If I'm not mistaken the monies for the FY93 budget will come from
the following:
Reddish Settlement $ 5,780
County Dog Fund $ 1,712
Sappett Settlement $ 6,700
Ambulance Receipts $ 25,000
Lot & Grave Fund $ 6,600
Taxation $14,356,360
----------
Total $14,402,152
I think the reason for the lower figure in the Stabilization Fund
was mainly due to the passage of the capital improvement article.
As a note of interest, the Maynard Public Schools will be receiving an
additional $441,704 (including capital improvement passage) this coming
year.
Steve
|
| The discussion on the budget mainly comes down to this:
1. The Selectmen had a printing deadline to publish the Warrant.
We went with a balanced budget which required reductions to Schools
(86K), Fire (25K) and Police (25K). This was a snapshot of the
then known budget picture, and was and is likely to change when and
if the State ever releases its Cherry Sheet figures to Cities and
Towns. We met with the School Committee and explained that when the
numbers come in from the State, if the $$$ is higher than our
estimates, the first $86K would go back into education.
2. The School Committee (probably due to some past experiences) was
very uneasy about this proposal, and voted to not accept the lower
budget figure. Therefore, the budget presented to the voters by
the Selectmen was out of balance by the $86K. The FinComm attempted
to bring the budget back into balance by amending the budget back to
the original figure as printed, but lost out.
3. So now we have a budget out of balance. Several things can happen
from here. The state figures could come in higher than we estimate,
in which case, we'll do just as we promised- fund the $86K back into
the school budget. The state figures could come in as estimated or
lower, which will require either additional cuts to cover the 86K
or an override. A third alternative, as Dave Griffin picked up in
373.2, is that when the FinComm transferred the Reddish Account funds
(article 16) into stabilization, the number was less the Capital
Improvements funds from Article 15 AND less $86K, which was left in
"Reserved for Appropraition".
In any event, we will be looking at an August or September Special
Town Meeting to bring the budget back into balance, using any one
of the three possible alternatives mentioned above. IF an override
is necessary (and I certainly hope not) remember that we will have
to approve it at both the Special Town Meeting and a special election.
To follow on to what Steve Morgan brought out in 373.3, the education
budget for FY92 represented 44.7% of the town pie, excluding debt and
interest and health care (which are carried under General Town Govern
ment). The Selectmen asked for level services budgets from all town
agencies for FY93. Most town agencies complied with our budget
message, except for the School Committee, which added a Business
Manager, a Third Grade teacher, a Curriculum Coordinator, a Technology
Coordinator, step raises, coaches, a Speech Therapist, and unbudgeted
costs of '92 staff (?). In spite of all this, Education again came
in at 44.7% of the town pie. The problem was, the pie got smaller
due to reductions in State reimbursements. Even when we reduced the
School budget, Education came out with 45.9% of the pie, which is
1.2% more of the pie than was requested. The Selectmen and FinComm
turned out the bad guys in the budget process, but we really feel that
we were and are making a commitment to education. The only issue
now is how to make up the $86K. My optimistic feeling is that the
Selectmen are cautious and conservative on the final numbers from the
State, and that when the actuals come in, we should be able to cover
the $86K with reimbursements. Famous last words from a rookie.
On a side note, I think that the first year of the new Charter worked
really well, overall. With the exception of the School budget glitch,
I saw a town government in general harmony, presenting a complete
package to the voters with few rough edges. The intention of the
Charter was to present a single Capital Improvements plan to the
voters in one article, and the attempt to unbundle the article by
line item would have put the entire plan back to its previous
"popularity contest" format. The FinComm got bashed at both the
Regular and Special Town Meetings which was unfair because they
are doing an outstanding job of trying to flush out all the pockets
of unspent money left in the old fiefdoms of the pre-charter days.
It will take a couple of more years to fully implement the Charter
and erase all the old tapes that continue to play, but we're getting
there.
Best regards,
Frank
|
| Re: .4
> On a side note, I think that the first year of the new Charter worked
> really well, overall.
Both the Charter and the new bylaws seem to be working quite well indeed, and
the initial results are quite nice to see.
> With the exception of the School budget glitch,
> I saw a town government in general harmony, presenting a complete
> package to the voters with few rough edges.
While I don't wish to cast aspersions on the Selectment/FinCom, *I* really
didn't consider the school budget a "glitch" -- both "sides" of this were
operating with only the best of intentions. The SC was responding to a
strong community outcry for better funding and operation of the schools, and
the Selectmen/FinCom were pursuing fiscal restraint and responsibility. Perhaps
it could have been unglitched, but I think the two messages from the community
forced this sitation and it was the community (albeit a darn small chunk of it)
that made the decision.
> The intention of the
> Charter was to present a single Capital Improvements plan to the
> voters in one article, and the attempt to unbundle the article by
> line item would have put the entire plan back to its previous
> "popularity contest" format.
The "unbundling" wasn't the only circumvention of the plan, I also
perceived the "tot lot" article as a "popularity contest" item -- and I
believe the FinCom had the appropriate response for it. [I'm surprised
you didn't mention this Frank :-) FinCom's message was heard (at least by
me) and the next meeting won't see as charitable an audience.]
> The FinComm got bashed at both the
> Regular and Special Town Meetings which was unfair because they
I hope that the FinCom doesn't view votes not in their favor as "bashing".
I can't remember a time when the FinCom has had a more eloquent and rational
spokesperson as Mr. Wesley, and their decisions were consistantly excellent.
Issues like the "tot lot" and the school budget can strike deeper at the heart
than other ones and call upon the community to sacrifice something for something
else. The FinCom's ability to articulate the implications of these decisions
allows us to make them in a careful and informed way. People who view the
FinCom as "the bad guys" miss the point entirely, and those on the FinCom
shouldn't allow themselves to be perceived as anti-anything.
- dave
|
| RE: .5
Good note, Dave, and well put.
By "glitch" my thought was that I had hoped that the budget could
have been agreed to by all parties prior to Town Meeting, but time
ran out and we had to go in with an out of balanced budget.
I was very nervous and pleased that the new process worked out, and
much of the credit goes to Mark Wesley and the FinComm. This is
an entirely new role for the FinComm from their pre-Charter role
of developing and presenting the budget, and they seem to enjoy
their new responsibilities. We (the Selectmen) have learned a lot
from them and they have uncovered a number of financial and
administrative problems that we need to address.
I didn't mention the tot lot article, because we were discussing
mostly the Annual town meeting. As I said in my comments on the
article, we (all of us) need to do a better job of Capital Planning
if we do not recognize our young people as a priority. As Bob Gilligan
put it "we screwed up".
All in all though, not a bad start for a new town government.
Frank
|