We received the following article from Sandra Coleman:
It is sad to say we have come to the point in our life when we respond to those who
write anonymously, and we give them precious time to respond to their words. The
writer who wrote "Grow Up" "Grow Up" "Grow Up" and "Your Website is Disgusting" was
hiding behind a 'door', for whatever reason, and slanders the person writing only
the truth on subjects of interest to the tax payers and rate payers of this town.
What is the writer afraid of? State your name!! If you, as author of these articles
believe in the words you have written, there should be a sense of pride in what you
have written. Therefore, I challenge the author of these two (2) articles to respond
to me and sign your name as 'we' are proud to sign our names to articles we have
written for 'Ashland Speaks' or any other paper.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Capital Improvement Planning
One key issue in the upcoming election is whether we will continue to try to fund capital expenses through yearly Warrant Articles or develop a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and begin funding these expenses by building capital reserves.
I have heard a number of opinions for and against developing a CIP ranging from, "It is a waste of time. Ashland only has 2,000 people, and the townspeople won't support it," to "Some towns New Hampshire fund all of their capital expenses through capital improvement plans and capital reserves." While there is a wide range of opinion, people on both sides are concerned about tying up tax payer money. This is particularly important concern in Ashland where our taxes and debt are high, and our ability to raise revenues is limited by demographic factors and a lack of economic development.
The whole point of developing a Capital Improvement Plan, however, is to find the best approach to budget for and fund large capital improvements like equipment, buildings, building repair, and roads. Although CIPs are generally a necessity for cities and larger towns, they also benefit small towns like Ashland. However, they have to be tailored to meet the needs of the community. It is also important to understand that CIPs are not new to our State. RSA 674:5 provides the guidance for developing Capital Improvement Programs. Many towns have already developed or are in the process of developing plans. The benefits of a CIP according to The League of Women Voters of the Upper Valley are as follows:
- Avoiding undue tax increases
- Preserving public health, safety and welfare
- Anticipating the demands of growth
- Improving communication and coordination
- Developing a fair distribution of capital costs
- Building a foundation for growth management and impact fees
- Identifying "scattered and premature" development
- Supporting economic development
For Ashland, the key benefits are avoiding undue tax increases, improving coordination among the town's governing bodies, preserving public health, safety, and welfare, and supporting economic development. One resident who is familiar with economic development said to me that given our limited ability to raise revenues, the only way we can solve our financial problems is to grow our way out." Towns with Master Plans and CIPs attract business and talented people.
What does a CIP plan involve? The core of the plan involves the following tasks:
- assessing the town's financial capability
- inventorying the town's capital assets (equipment, buildings, and infrastructure)
- determining when assets will need to be replaced or repaired
- developing a plan to finance assets
- determining the best approach to replace or repair them
For Ashland, one of the most important features of the planning process will be to assess the town's financial capability. I have already mentioned that our ability to raise revenues is limited. Our ability to control spending is also limited by factors that are internal and external to the town. This year, for example, the town limited budget increases by putting capital expenses and charitable contributions in Warrant Articles, and changing the Director of Parks and Recreation position to part-time. The town cannot control the cost of fuel, the economic situation, or cuts in state and federal spending.
Since we have no CIP, we end up as we did last year having to replace equipment and make costly repairs without having accumulated any capital reserves to help fund them. For example, the problems with the Fire Station roof were known but the repairs were not planned for. This year there are warrant articles to replace or repair about $250,000 worth of capital assets. If we approve these articles, we will raise our taxes approximately 1 mill. But, if we had a CIP, we could have paid for part or all of these expenses, saved money in the long, and made our budgeting process more straight-forward and transparent.
A key advantage of a CIP is that it helps the Selectmen and the Budget Committee manage the town's finances by prioritizing capital improvements, preparing cost-benefit analyses to determine the best approach to purchasing and financing capital assets given the town's financial capacity. Now we invest in capital improvements on a yearly basis when equipment wears out, buildings need repairs, and roads are so bad we cannot ignore them. Our assets literally plan for us. We are going to be trying to catch up for quite some time because we have put off purchases and repairs for so long.
One final point. Putting requests for the funding of key capital equipment and repairs can put the town at risk if voters do not approve them. Capital Improvement Plans do not take control away from voters because voters have input into the plans, and the plans provide voters with the necessary information to support spending. This year we are being asked to approve a new bucket loader and tractor just a year after purchasing an expensive sidewalk plow, and we have no cost benefit analysis that justifies these purchases and no idea of how they fit into the town's priorities. A CIP makes the entire process easier for voters to understand and easier for town officials to manage.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
GROW UP GROW UP GROW UP!!!!!!
We received the following article:
I have lived in Ashland many years and have never, and I mean
never seen residents act the way you people do. So what if there are mistakes in
the union contract, it can be corrected. No big deal!!!
You act life selfish brats with nothing better to do
than to find fault with everything everyone else does except yourselves. Please
grow up and don't act this way. The town is more important. Stop your pettiness
and start putting more positive things on
the website like the many hours the selectmen spend
working and doing what is best for the town of
Ashland. The many hours the office staff puts in. Take your website down, the
majority of the
townspeople do not even want to go on it. GROW UP GROW UP GROW UP!!!!!!
I have lived in Ashland many years and have never, and I mean
never seen residents act the way you people do. So what if there are mistakes in
the union contract, it can be corrected. No big deal!!!
You act life selfish brats with nothing better to do
than to find fault with everything everyone else does except yourselves. Please
grow up and don't act this way. The town is more important. Stop your pettiness
and start putting more positive things on
the website like the many hours the selectmen spend
working and doing what is best for the town of
Ashland. The many hours the office staff puts in. Take your website down, the
majority of the
townspeople do not even want to go on it. GROW UP GROW UP GROW UP!!!!!!
Saturday, February 18, 2012
The Discrepancies in the Union Contract
Given the number of questions and concerns that have been raised about the new Union Contract, we felt it important to take a close look at the problems. This task is complicated by the fact there are several different versions of the new contract out in public. Rather than discuss all of the discrepancies, and there are many, I will focus on some of the key differences.
First, some background information. The new contract (April 1, 2012 - March 31, 2015) is based on the current contract (April 1, 2003 - March 31, 2008). The town and the union negotiated a Tentative Agreement that was initialed by the parties on January 11, 2012. The agreements in the Tentative Agree should have been incorporated into the new contract that was signed on January 12, 2012. I have seen several copies of the new contract, all with the same dated signature page but distributed at different times, one from January 24, 2012, one on February 9, 2012, and a copy I obtained from the town office on February 10, 2012. There are differences among these copies, which I will discuss below.
As far as I can tell, some of the discrepancies have resulted from improperly transferring sections of the tentative agreement and the current contract to the new contract. There are also differences between the three copies of the final contract I referred to above.
One key problem concerns Article 24, Uniforms. The part of Article 24 that lists the items in the clothing allotment and the boot allowance was left out of the February 9th version of the contract but was added to the February 10th version as page 23. The new section takes up half a page, and the remainder of the page is blank. There is no other place in the contract where there is a large portion of blank space. In addition, the page references in the Table on Contents do not reflect the addition of the information on page 23. Articles 25, 26, and 27 are listed on page 23 when they are actually on page 24. The Table of Contents looks as if it might have been altered to account for the additional page. The page references are in a right justified column, but "22" is out of alignment with the rest of the page numbers.
I have seen two versions of the Tentative Agreement with different last pages. The copy distributed on February 9, 2012 was initialed by 5 people. The copy from February 10th has been initialed by two additional people, Selectman Jeanette Stewart and negotiator Ann-Marie Welch. It appears that the initials A.M.W have been squeezed between the date and the initials R.D., and it also appears that the initials J.I.S. are squeezed in at the bottom of the page. The hand-written date on the both pages is January 11, 2012. This seems to indicate that the Tentative Agreement was not initialed by all parties at the same time.
Another important omission concerns Article 23 - Wage Rates. The article begins by stating, "Effective April 1, 2012, wage rate schedule is provided in Appendix 1, attached..." However, there is no Appendix 1 in the February 10th version of the new contract. When I asked for Appendix 1 at the Town Hall, I was told that there is no Appendix 1. In other words, there is no wage rate schedule to be followed for paying union employees in the new contract. The rate increase does not appear to be spelled out anywhere else in the contract. The January 24th and February 9th versions both have an Appendix "A" as does the current contract.
There is a significant discrepancy concerning Article 11, Holidays. The Tentative Agreement specifies that item 5 should read the same as the current contract; however, there is no item 5 in the new contract. Item 5 should read, "When an employee works on a holiday, he/she shall receive time and one half in addition to the eight hours of holiday pay within the pay period the holiday is earned." This could mean that a union employee would not receive time and half in addition to holiday pay if he/she were required to work on a holiday.
Article 23 also specifies that wages will be increased further according to the CPI-U (Consumer Price Index of All Urban Consumers) for the Greater Boston Area plus one-percent. I was told that members of the negotiating team had requested that this be changed to more accurately reflect the economic conditions in our area, but it appears this was not done.
Article 13, Sickness and Disability, Section B in the Tentative Agreement only says, "Employees to be on disability insurance with LGC." The final contract reads the same as the current contract, which is significantly different from the tentative agreement. It contains 7 sections and does not mention LGC. I am not sure how this might affect workers on disability.
In the current contract, Article 11, Annual Vacation specifies that, "vacation will be credited on January 1 of each year." The final contract does not specify a date. When vacation is credited affects when employees can take vacation and how much vacation they can take.
There are a number of inconsistencies in the wording of the contract in regard to who is responsible for certain interactions regarding employees like requiring a doctor's certificate or approving educational reimbursement. In some places the contract specifies the Board of Selectmen, in some the Town Administrator, and in some the Hiring Authority. The problem is that some union employees work for the town and some for the Electric Department. The contract needs to make clear who is responsible. If the responsibility is split between the town and the Electric Department, the contract should reference the Hiring Authority, which would be applicable to all.
Since I am not a lawyer, I do not know what the legal ramifications of these problems are. Clearly, the negotiating team and the union are both at fault since both parties signed documents that contain so many discrepancies. But, we as townspeople are now faced with a problem since we have to vote on a Warrant Article to fund the contract, when we know the contract is flawed, and there is no salary schedule that specifies the exact amount of the raises. Furthermore, figures in the the Warrant Article may not be correct. The figures include the cost of all the positions at the Electric Department and not the the cost of the three positions that are currently filled as stated in the Warrant Article. In addition, the figures did not include the allowance for jackets. Hopefully, these issues will be resolved before the election, so we will have a clear understanding of what we are actually voting for or against. We also should also call for a in-depth review to see what went wrong with the process, to determine why there are differences among signed copies of the contract, and to identify which copy of the signed contract is correct.
First, some background information. The new contract (April 1, 2012 - March 31, 2015) is based on the current contract (April 1, 2003 - March 31, 2008). The town and the union negotiated a Tentative Agreement that was initialed by the parties on January 11, 2012. The agreements in the Tentative Agree should have been incorporated into the new contract that was signed on January 12, 2012. I have seen several copies of the new contract, all with the same dated signature page but distributed at different times, one from January 24, 2012, one on February 9, 2012, and a copy I obtained from the town office on February 10, 2012. There are differences among these copies, which I will discuss below.
As far as I can tell, some of the discrepancies have resulted from improperly transferring sections of the tentative agreement and the current contract to the new contract. There are also differences between the three copies of the final contract I referred to above.
One key problem concerns Article 24, Uniforms. The part of Article 24 that lists the items in the clothing allotment and the boot allowance was left out of the February 9th version of the contract but was added to the February 10th version as page 23. The new section takes up half a page, and the remainder of the page is blank. There is no other place in the contract where there is a large portion of blank space. In addition, the page references in the Table on Contents do not reflect the addition of the information on page 23. Articles 25, 26, and 27 are listed on page 23 when they are actually on page 24. The Table of Contents looks as if it might have been altered to account for the additional page. The page references are in a right justified column, but "22" is out of alignment with the rest of the page numbers.
I have seen two versions of the Tentative Agreement with different last pages. The copy distributed on February 9, 2012 was initialed by 5 people. The copy from February 10th has been initialed by two additional people, Selectman Jeanette Stewart and negotiator Ann-Marie Welch. It appears that the initials A.M.W have been squeezed between the date and the initials R.D., and it also appears that the initials J.I.S. are squeezed in at the bottom of the page. The hand-written date on the both pages is January 11, 2012. This seems to indicate that the Tentative Agreement was not initialed by all parties at the same time.
Another important omission concerns Article 23 - Wage Rates. The article begins by stating, "Effective April 1, 2012, wage rate schedule is provided in Appendix 1, attached..." However, there is no Appendix 1 in the February 10th version of the new contract. When I asked for Appendix 1 at the Town Hall, I was told that there is no Appendix 1. In other words, there is no wage rate schedule to be followed for paying union employees in the new contract. The rate increase does not appear to be spelled out anywhere else in the contract. The January 24th and February 9th versions both have an Appendix "A" as does the current contract.
There is a significant discrepancy concerning Article 11, Holidays. The Tentative Agreement specifies that item 5 should read the same as the current contract; however, there is no item 5 in the new contract. Item 5 should read, "When an employee works on a holiday, he/she shall receive time and one half in addition to the eight hours of holiday pay within the pay period the holiday is earned." This could mean that a union employee would not receive time and half in addition to holiday pay if he/she were required to work on a holiday.
Article 23 also specifies that wages will be increased further according to the CPI-U (Consumer Price Index of All Urban Consumers) for the Greater Boston Area plus one-percent. I was told that members of the negotiating team had requested that this be changed to more accurately reflect the economic conditions in our area, but it appears this was not done.
Article 13, Sickness and Disability, Section B in the Tentative Agreement only says, "Employees to be on disability insurance with LGC." The final contract reads the same as the current contract, which is significantly different from the tentative agreement. It contains 7 sections and does not mention LGC. I am not sure how this might affect workers on disability.
In the current contract, Article 11, Annual Vacation specifies that, "vacation will be credited on January 1 of each year." The final contract does not specify a date. When vacation is credited affects when employees can take vacation and how much vacation they can take.
There are a number of inconsistencies in the wording of the contract in regard to who is responsible for certain interactions regarding employees like requiring a doctor's certificate or approving educational reimbursement. In some places the contract specifies the Board of Selectmen, in some the Town Administrator, and in some the Hiring Authority. The problem is that some union employees work for the town and some for the Electric Department. The contract needs to make clear who is responsible. If the responsibility is split between the town and the Electric Department, the contract should reference the Hiring Authority, which would be applicable to all.
Since I am not a lawyer, I do not know what the legal ramifications of these problems are. Clearly, the negotiating team and the union are both at fault since both parties signed documents that contain so many discrepancies. But, we as townspeople are now faced with a problem since we have to vote on a Warrant Article to fund the contract, when we know the contract is flawed, and there is no salary schedule that specifies the exact amount of the raises. Furthermore, figures in the the Warrant Article may not be correct. The figures include the cost of all the positions at the Electric Department and not the the cost of the three positions that are currently filled as stated in the Warrant Article. In addition, the figures did not include the allowance for jackets. Hopefully, these issues will be resolved before the election, so we will have a clear understanding of what we are actually voting for or against. We also should also call for a in-depth review to see what went wrong with the process, to determine why there are differences among signed copies of the contract, and to identify which copy of the signed contract is correct.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
The Union Contract
There has been discussion in town about the terms of the new union contract and discrepancies between the new contract, the tentative agreement, and the old contract.
The new contract calls for a salary increase of 4.2%. It also calls for the union employees to accept the new health care plan, which represents a savings to the town. The concern, however, is that the non-union employees have been given a 1.5% and have been asked to contribute to their health insurance as most local employees in the state already do. Jeanette Stewart has said that the town can go back to the negotiating table at any time to discuss union employee contributions to their health care plan. There is, however, no guarantee that this will actually happen after the election and no guarantee that the town will be able to reach a new agreement without the leverage of salary increases and other benefits at stake.
At Monday Night's Select Board Meeting Lee Nichols addressed the issue of discrepancies between the new union contract, the tentative agreement, and the old contract. Lee also addressed this issue at the Deliberative Session on Saturday. Lee correctly pointed out that some of the terms in the tentative agreement and the old contract were not entered correctly into the new contract.
The discussion became heated. Jeanette Stewart at one point tried to end public discussion on the subject. Glen Dion said this was a union matter and not a public matter. Electric Commissioner Kendall L. Hughes said that he had been left out of the final approval process while Jeanette Stewart said that she had notified him but had not received his comments on the contract.
The union contract is a public issue, not a private matter between town officials and the union. We pay employee salaries through our taxes, and we have a vested interested in ensuring that salaries, benefits and working conditions are clearly defined and fair. Most of our employees are also residents and taxpayers. The negotiating committee and the union are responsible for reviewing and approving the final contract. The fact is this was not done by either side, and now there are a number of discrepancies that affect salaries, benefits, and working conditions. These discrepancies also affect managers who have to carry out the conditions of the contract.
After a lengthy argument, Jeanette Stewart agreed to meet with the negotiating committee to discuss the issue. The meeting should have been arranged after Saturday's session when the problems were first brought up. Better still, the problems should have been brought to the attention of the negotiating committee and resolved before the Deliberative Session.
The argument that took place at the BOS meeting also reveals that there are underlying issues that interfere with decision making and problem solving. There are systemic, political, and personal problems that interfere with communication, close cooperation, problem solving, and effective management of the town's business. We have serious financial problems to deal with in the coming year. These are problems that will be with us for many years. But, we won't be able to make progress if we can't work together.
The new contract calls for a salary increase of 4.2%. It also calls for the union employees to accept the new health care plan, which represents a savings to the town. The concern, however, is that the non-union employees have been given a 1.5% and have been asked to contribute to their health insurance as most local employees in the state already do. Jeanette Stewart has said that the town can go back to the negotiating table at any time to discuss union employee contributions to their health care plan. There is, however, no guarantee that this will actually happen after the election and no guarantee that the town will be able to reach a new agreement without the leverage of salary increases and other benefits at stake.
At Monday Night's Select Board Meeting Lee Nichols addressed the issue of discrepancies between the new union contract, the tentative agreement, and the old contract. Lee also addressed this issue at the Deliberative Session on Saturday. Lee correctly pointed out that some of the terms in the tentative agreement and the old contract were not entered correctly into the new contract.
The discussion became heated. Jeanette Stewart at one point tried to end public discussion on the subject. Glen Dion said this was a union matter and not a public matter. Electric Commissioner Kendall L. Hughes said that he had been left out of the final approval process while Jeanette Stewart said that she had notified him but had not received his comments on the contract.
The union contract is a public issue, not a private matter between town officials and the union. We pay employee salaries through our taxes, and we have a vested interested in ensuring that salaries, benefits and working conditions are clearly defined and fair. Most of our employees are also residents and taxpayers. The negotiating committee and the union are responsible for reviewing and approving the final contract. The fact is this was not done by either side, and now there are a number of discrepancies that affect salaries, benefits, and working conditions. These discrepancies also affect managers who have to carry out the conditions of the contract.
After a lengthy argument, Jeanette Stewart agreed to meet with the negotiating committee to discuss the issue. The meeting should have been arranged after Saturday's session when the problems were first brought up. Better still, the problems should have been brought to the attention of the negotiating committee and resolved before the Deliberative Session.
The argument that took place at the BOS meeting also reveals that there are underlying issues that interfere with decision making and problem solving. There are systemic, political, and personal problems that interfere with communication, close cooperation, problem solving, and effective management of the town's business. We have serious financial problems to deal with in the coming year. These are problems that will be with us for many years. But, we won't be able to make progress if we can't work together.
Monday, February 6, 2012
The Deliberative Session
If you attended the deliberative session on Saturday, you might have thought that the most pressing problems facing the town were moving the bandstand and making the Parks and Recreation Director a full-time position. The real issue is getting control of spending and facing up to our serious financial situation. A committee of interested people can resolve the issues involved in moving the bandstand and even raise the remaining $2,500 to move it. Making Parks and Recreation a self-supporting entity would be one way to restore the position without cost to taxpayers. However, we will not be able to resolve our financial problems unless we understand them, develop a plan to address them, and make the difficult decision to tighten our belts and work together.
Steve Felton, Patsy Tucker, Police Chief Tony Randall, Fire Chief Steve Heath, and Fran Newton all addressed the Warrant Articles that will help us build capital reserves. Warrant Article 14 calls for the establishment of a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Committee, Article 8 calls for the establishment of a $125,000 capital reserve fund for roads, and Article 10 calls for the establishment of a capital reserve fund for Fire Department equipment.
Why do we need a Capital Improvement Plan? Chief Randall made the case when he said that we have put off replacing equipment for so long that we now have to pay the piper. Steve Felton described this situation in financial terms. The town has a little over $7,000 in capital reserves and $20,000,000 in accumulated depreciation. As a piece of equipment, a building, or a road ages, it loses value. The $20,000,000 is an estimate of how much value all of the town's equipment, buildings, and roads have declined in value over the years. Normally, businesses and governments put away money to replace and repair these things, but Ashland has not, and so we have to find ways to fund fund these things as they need repair or replacement. A Capital Reserve Plan is a form of long term planning. It identifies and prioritizes capital expenses so the town can plan how best to deal with these expenses.
What are these expenses? Last year, we leased two police cruisers, and we purchased a sidewalk plow with attachments and a defibrillator. These items added $23,000 to this year's budget This year, the town is asking voters to approve Warrant Articles to lease a loader for the Public Works Department ($28,420/year for 5 years), repair the fire department roof ($50,000), purchase police radios ($10,000), and lease a tractor for the recycling station ($15,000 per year for four years). The cost this year is $103,420 and the total cost is $257,300. The actual cost of repairing the Fire Station roof is unknown at this point because the engineering studies have not been done. $50,000 is not based on an actual estimate.
Why is this a problem? These kinds of expenses cause spikes in the tax rate, and they increase future budgets, and they can take financial and personnel resources away from other important projects.
Planning and saving for these expenses allows us to prioritize large expenses, gives us more options in terms of purchasing and financing, reduces the cost of financing, and limits dramatic increases in the tax rate. However, as taxpayers, we would have to accept the concept that the cost of operating the town includes our yearly expenses plus a portion of our long term expenses.
Our problem now is that we have $20,000,000 in accumulated depreciation, and we have no idea how much money it will actually cost to replace or repair the items that have decreased in value, nor do we know when we will have to replace them. There are several warrant articles that will help us begin saving for things we will need. Article 8 would establish a $125,000 capital reserve fund for roads. As Fran Newton of the Budget Committee pointed out, it will cost $1,000,000 per mile to repair Thompson Street, Smith Hill, and West Street. $125,000 is only a start, but a necessary start. Article 10 would establish an $8,000 capital reserve for Fire Equipment. The purpose of this article is to spread the cost of 400 gallon water tank over two years. The tank is for use in fighting forest fires and reaching homes in town that are hard to access with other equipment. Article 13 establishes a non capital reserve fund for the repair and maintenance of the town clock.
Developing a good Capital Improvement Program takes several years, a great deal of work by the members of the Select Board, the Budget Committee, the Planning Board, and townspeople. Following the plan takes political will and cooperation. It will also take a number of years to get the town on a solid financial footing. During this time, we will have to accept higher taxes and lower budgets. The alternative is to continue to operate without long term planning and not only the ability to choose how we deal with our financial problems but lose our identity as town.
Steve Felton, Patsy Tucker, Police Chief Tony Randall, Fire Chief Steve Heath, and Fran Newton all addressed the Warrant Articles that will help us build capital reserves. Warrant Article 14 calls for the establishment of a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Committee, Article 8 calls for the establishment of a $125,000 capital reserve fund for roads, and Article 10 calls for the establishment of a capital reserve fund for Fire Department equipment.
Why do we need a Capital Improvement Plan? Chief Randall made the case when he said that we have put off replacing equipment for so long that we now have to pay the piper. Steve Felton described this situation in financial terms. The town has a little over $7,000 in capital reserves and $20,000,000 in accumulated depreciation. As a piece of equipment, a building, or a road ages, it loses value. The $20,000,000 is an estimate of how much value all of the town's equipment, buildings, and roads have declined in value over the years. Normally, businesses and governments put away money to replace and repair these things, but Ashland has not, and so we have to find ways to fund fund these things as they need repair or replacement. A Capital Reserve Plan is a form of long term planning. It identifies and prioritizes capital expenses so the town can plan how best to deal with these expenses.
What are these expenses? Last year, we leased two police cruisers, and we purchased a sidewalk plow with attachments and a defibrillator. These items added $23,000 to this year's budget This year, the town is asking voters to approve Warrant Articles to lease a loader for the Public Works Department ($28,420/year for 5 years), repair the fire department roof ($50,000), purchase police radios ($10,000), and lease a tractor for the recycling station ($15,000 per year for four years). The cost this year is $103,420 and the total cost is $257,300. The actual cost of repairing the Fire Station roof is unknown at this point because the engineering studies have not been done. $50,000 is not based on an actual estimate.
Why is this a problem? These kinds of expenses cause spikes in the tax rate, and they increase future budgets, and they can take financial and personnel resources away from other important projects.
Planning and saving for these expenses allows us to prioritize large expenses, gives us more options in terms of purchasing and financing, reduces the cost of financing, and limits dramatic increases in the tax rate. However, as taxpayers, we would have to accept the concept that the cost of operating the town includes our yearly expenses plus a portion of our long term expenses.
Our problem now is that we have $20,000,000 in accumulated depreciation, and we have no idea how much money it will actually cost to replace or repair the items that have decreased in value, nor do we know when we will have to replace them. There are several warrant articles that will help us begin saving for things we will need. Article 8 would establish a $125,000 capital reserve fund for roads. As Fran Newton of the Budget Committee pointed out, it will cost $1,000,000 per mile to repair Thompson Street, Smith Hill, and West Street. $125,000 is only a start, but a necessary start. Article 10 would establish an $8,000 capital reserve for Fire Equipment. The purpose of this article is to spread the cost of 400 gallon water tank over two years. The tank is for use in fighting forest fires and reaching homes in town that are hard to access with other equipment. Article 13 establishes a non capital reserve fund for the repair and maintenance of the town clock.
Developing a good Capital Improvement Program takes several years, a great deal of work by the members of the Select Board, the Budget Committee, the Planning Board, and townspeople. Following the plan takes political will and cooperation. It will also take a number of years to get the town on a solid financial footing. During this time, we will have to accept higher taxes and lower budgets. The alternative is to continue to operate without long term planning and not only the ability to choose how we deal with our financial problems but lose our identity as town.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Candidates for Town Offices
Member Board of Selectmen – 3 year term: Fran Newton, Jeanette Stewart
Member Board of Selectmen – 1 year term: Sandra Coleman
Town Moderator - 2 year term: Bobbi Hoerter
Town Clerk/Tax Collector – 3 year term: Sherrie L. Downing, Patricia Tucker
Town Trustee of the Trust Funds – 3 year term: Thomas Peters
Library Trustee – 3 year term: Lynn Davis
Supervisor of the Checklist – 6 year term: Beverly J. Ober
Electric Commissioner – 3 year term: Bobbi Hoerter
Water and Sewer Commissioner – 3 year term:John C. Hughes, Gordon F. McCormack Jr.
Budget Committee – 3 year term [three positions]:David Ruell, Mark Scarano, David Toth
Ashland School Board Member – 3 year term: Jennifer Wrath
Ashland School Board Member - 2 year term: Mardean Badger
Ashland School District Moderator – 1 year term: Philip Preston
Ashland School District Clerk – 1 year term: Patricia Tucker
Ashland School District Treasurer – 1 year term: Brian Chalmers
Member Board of Selectmen – 1 year term: Sandra Coleman
Town Moderator - 2 year term: Bobbi Hoerter
Town Clerk/Tax Collector – 3 year term: Sherrie L. Downing, Patricia Tucker
Town Trustee of the Trust Funds – 3 year term: Thomas Peters
Library Trustee – 3 year term: Lynn Davis
Supervisor of the Checklist – 6 year term: Beverly J. Ober
Electric Commissioner – 3 year term: Bobbi Hoerter
Water and Sewer Commissioner – 3 year term:John C. Hughes, Gordon F. McCormack Jr.
Budget Committee – 3 year term [three positions]:David Ruell, Mark Scarano, David Toth
Ashland School Board Member – 3 year term: Jennifer Wrath
Ashland School Board Member - 2 year term: Mardean Badger
Ashland School District Moderator – 1 year term: Philip Preston
Ashland School District Clerk – 1 year term: Patricia Tucker
Ashland School District Treasurer – 1 year term: Brian Chalmers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)