Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits..
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Sunday, December 19, 2010
ARE WE HEADED TOWARD FULLY FUNDING SERVICES WITH FEES AND REVENUE?
Just as in the private sector, the cost to the Town of doing business is continuously rising. State and federal subsidies/revenue sharing is diminishing. Even with Prop 2-1/2 and new growth, the town's resources are not sufficient to sustain the level of services expected by the community.
The water and sewer enterprise funds are supposed to be funded fully by rates and fees. The Harbor is revenue neutral although all the fees it collects go into the general fund - as do the ambulance fees collected by the Fire Department. Neither are credited to these departments as offsets. We should fix that.
The question before us today is in regard to the Transfer Facility (or The Dump as us old-timers will always call it). Right now it costs $642,000 that is partially offset by revenues from recycling and fees of $352,000 leaving a deficit of $290,000. The majority of the revenue (about $300,000) comes from the sale of stickers and blue bags. Do we double the cost of these to make up the deficit? Or do we as tax payers have the reasonable expectation that a portion of our taxes will go to support trash removal? I don't know the answer and am looking to you for input. Please take a minute to participate in the poll.
A bigger question is what should our taxes pay for? Police, fire, schools, town administration, maintenance (building and infrastructure), capital expenditures, library, recreation, athletics, senior services, trash collection? Followed by what of these, if any, should be user fee based? Should, for example, permitting (Conservation, Planning, Board of Health) be paid for solely by application fees? Or do some or all of these provide a benefit to the community at large and deserve some portion of our tax dollars?
The Town/School cost of doing business including health insurance, benefits, pensions, unemployment and contractual obligations is unsustainable. What level of services do we want? What are we willing to pay? It's a conversation I'm not looking forward to having but it's one the Town is going to have to have - and sooner rather than later.
Results of Poll: HOW SHOULD THE TRANSFER FACILITY BE FUNDED?
The water and sewer enterprise funds are supposed to be funded fully by rates and fees. The Harbor is revenue neutral although all the fees it collects go into the general fund - as do the ambulance fees collected by the Fire Department. Neither are credited to these departments as offsets. We should fix that.
The question before us today is in regard to the Transfer Facility (or The Dump as us old-timers will always call it). Right now it costs $642,000 that is partially offset by revenues from recycling and fees of $352,000 leaving a deficit of $290,000. The majority of the revenue (about $300,000) comes from the sale of stickers and blue bags. Do we double the cost of these to make up the deficit? Or do we as tax payers have the reasonable expectation that a portion of our taxes will go to support trash removal? I don't know the answer and am looking to you for input. Please take a minute to participate in the poll.
A bigger question is what should our taxes pay for? Police, fire, schools, town administration, maintenance (building and infrastructure), capital expenditures, library, recreation, athletics, senior services, trash collection? Followed by what of these, if any, should be user fee based? Should, for example, permitting (Conservation, Planning, Board of Health) be paid for solely by application fees? Or do some or all of these provide a benefit to the community at large and deserve some portion of our tax dollars?
The Town/School cost of doing business including health insurance, benefits, pensions, unemployment and contractual obligations is unsustainable. What level of services do we want? What are we willing to pay? It's a conversation I'm not looking forward to having but it's one the Town is going to have to have - and sooner rather than later.
Results of Poll: HOW SHOULD THE TRANSFER FACILITY BE FUNDED?
11 (37%) |
15 (51%) |
3 (10%) |
0 (0%) |
Votes so far: 29
POLITICIANS vs. LEADERS
The last line in my previous blog got me thinking. It's a fine line between (a) listening to the concerns of the public and making a decision based on their input because your research leads you to the same conclusion and (b) blindly advocating for a faction based on expediency and "political blowback". I use quotation marks because that's what a selectman said at the meeting Monday night…"We're a political body and we make decisions based on politics and potential political blowback." A majority of the BoS agreed.
Is that the kind of leadership you want - or deserve? I hope not because if you do that says something basic about this community I don't want to believe.
That's not how I make my decisions. I do my homework, listen to anyone who wants to weigh in on the subject, and consult with objective experts when required…then I make my decision based on facts and what's in the best interest of the town as a whole – not on friendship or votes in the next election.
Just look at my voting record on the tough issues: Treat's Pond, LH/AA sewer betterments (50/50), Cat Dam and the Water Enterprise Fund crisis. Those were difficult decisions that impacted residents. The Bear Hill Easement looms as another.
With each vote someone agrees with me; someone doesn't. I've lost the support of individuals I thought were friends; I've been threatened. I'm sorry my decisions have impacted residents but I wouldn't change a one of them.
On the other hand I am continuously buoyed by unsolicited expressions of support by many in the community (some who disagree with some of my decisions but overall think I'm doing a good job).
We have individual rights but we live in a community because a long time ago man decided banding together provided more safety and benefits than existing independently. So, in my mind, the tradeoff is that when something benefits the common weal (as in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts) then sometimes some of us get impacted.
For example, my neighborhood was negatively impacted for 3 years during the school expansion and the immediate abutters continue to be affected by early morning deliveries, dumpsters and lights; many others were impacted with the return of the railroad; some by staging sites for water and sewer expansion on Main Street and Little Harbor; still others are impacted when vacant lots they consider open space are developed; and others by a proposed wind turbine. All of these are deemed in the best interest of the town as a whole but maybe not for some individuals.
That puts a heavy burden on those making these decisions: if you're not willing to take on the responsibility of leadership then you shouldn't assume the position of a leader. One of my favorite sayings is "Unless you're jello you should never conform to a mold." Thomas Jefferson put it more aptly: In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
Is that the kind of leadership you want - or deserve? I hope not because if you do that says something basic about this community I don't want to believe.
That's not how I make my decisions. I do my homework, listen to anyone who wants to weigh in on the subject, and consult with objective experts when required…then I make my decision based on facts and what's in the best interest of the town as a whole – not on friendship or votes in the next election.
Just look at my voting record on the tough issues: Treat's Pond, LH/AA sewer betterments (50/50), Cat Dam and the Water Enterprise Fund crisis. Those were difficult decisions that impacted residents. The Bear Hill Easement looms as another.
With each vote someone agrees with me; someone doesn't. I've lost the support of individuals I thought were friends; I've been threatened. I'm sorry my decisions have impacted residents but I wouldn't change a one of them.
On the other hand I am continuously buoyed by unsolicited expressions of support by many in the community (some who disagree with some of my decisions but overall think I'm doing a good job).
We have individual rights but we live in a community because a long time ago man decided banding together provided more safety and benefits than existing independently. So, in my mind, the tradeoff is that when something benefits the common weal (as in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts) then sometimes some of us get impacted.
For example, my neighborhood was negatively impacted for 3 years during the school expansion and the immediate abutters continue to be affected by early morning deliveries, dumpsters and lights; many others were impacted with the return of the railroad; some by staging sites for water and sewer expansion on Main Street and Little Harbor; still others are impacted when vacant lots they consider open space are developed; and others by a proposed wind turbine. All of these are deemed in the best interest of the town as a whole but maybe not for some individuals.
That puts a heavy burden on those making these decisions: if you're not willing to take on the responsibility of leadership then you shouldn't assume the position of a leader. One of my favorite sayings is "Unless you're jello you should never conform to a mold." Thomas Jefferson put it more aptly: In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)