July 1, 2004
Bridgewater
Raynham
Easton
East Bridgewater
West Bridgewater
Massachusetts
Legislation & Politics
USA
Legislation & Politics
World
Education
Bridgewater-Raynham Schools
Massachusetts
USA
Archives (past stories)
Opinion/Analysis
Joseph Gillis Jr.
You can do something!
The rhetoric is already beginning to heat up on the ballot question for Bridgewater voters on whether or not to exceed the tax limitations of Proposition 2-1/2. The proponents are making statements that various functions will decertify, or other scary things will immediately happen. There are also comparisons to how taxes have gone up less than inflation. Do your own research, and determine for yourself if these claims are true. Give some consideration to the often-cited comparison of taxes to inflation; The CPI (Consume Price Index) represents all goods and services purchased for consumption by the reference population. What that has to do with the costs of running a municipality would be an interesting thought to ponder.
Prior to casting your vote on an increase of taxes to the property owners to accommodate an additional $2,240,969 in spending, you should consider how the funds will be spent and if there is a plan. Approximately $464 thousand will be earmarked for Town spending, and the remaining amount (in excess of $1.7 million) will go towards the Bridgewater-Raynham Regional School District.
Often, those against an override are cast as anti-education, or people who do not understand, or people who do not care about others. This generalization is neither correct nor fair. Many of the citizens of Bridgewater who are against the override want to make sure that the funds are truly needed and spent in a reasonable manner. There should be a plan consisting of hard and realistic numbers.
On the town side, revenue should be further investigated. In the past, we have heard about the many town-owned parcels of land that could be sold. The only properties to come before the town are a few parcels from Robert Road. If there are others, these should be brought before the town to determine their disposition immediately. Ownership and operation of the Old Scotland Links Golf Course should also be reviewed and brought before the voters to determine if there is interest in selling the property. A sale would provide cash to the town, relieve it of its financial liability, and also provide annual tax revenue to the town for its property value. Expense savings should also be further analyzed. Bridgewater recently had someone complete an energy audit to determine if savings were possible for the purchase of electricity. Has there been similar research into other contracts?
For the schools, there should be an analysis of all areas of the proposed $50 million budget. The existence of a dollar amount in one year should not dictate a number in the next year. There is a need for “zero-based” budgeting, where every number is determined new and must be justified.
Each town department and the School Department should be looked at to determine its value to the community. Every category and line item should be reviewed in every department. A determination of the costs associated to run at various levels, as well as impact statements for every program and expenditure is required. The levels would be: not funded, funded to allow some administrative and/or minimal operation (for example, only a coordinator), funded to a 'bare bones' or level sufficient to deal with majority of requests, and funded to provide a complete and full service. While we might desire to fund all areas to “full service”, this is not financially possible. Just like in your own household you must make a choice about subscribing to every pay cable channel vs. insurance, choices need to be made at the municipal level.
It is only with this information that an informed decision can be made as to how much funding is truly needed and appropriate in each department. In a fictional world, where money is no concern, it would be expedient to say all departments should be fully funded to the requested maximum levels. However, this is real life, and the dollars are very real to many taxpayers. A plan is needed, and choices will have to be made.
If a business owner approached a bank, requesting funds to get them through, they would be asked to provide a plan. If the business owner replied that there is no plan, it is a desperate situation, and there will be dire consequences if money is not forthcoming, then the bank would reply “No thank you” and run quickly away.
As a taxpayer, and someone being asked to pay a significant amount of money without a plan, you should also reply “No thank you” and cast your NO vote accordingly on July 31st. Tell our elected leaders that you want to see a plan, and will not be swayed by warnings of supposed dire consequences.
