Author Archives: dunster

Finance Committe hears the Town Manager

(Writer’s note: I’m behind in my notes, basically a meeting behind. These are from Wednesday of last week. I’m not going to get to tonight’s meeting until later this week. Black text is mostly objective, red text is mostly subjective in nature.)

Town Manager Sullivan and Deputy Town Manager Galkowski were at Wednesday’s meeting, and they spoke on the first several items discussed.

Article 28 is about creating, through home-rule legislation, a special fund for the purposes of managing the properties that the town owns but rents to others. The fund will collect rents, pay expenses, and (this is the special part) save money for capital improvements. There was some discussion about whether or not the town should sell some of the unused schools and what the numbers were around that question. There was discussion about whether or not the properties could make payments in lieu of taxes to the town – the answer appears to be yes. I found myself wondering if we could convince Minuteman that Arlington was a perfect place to go if it wants a smaller campus.

The next topic was how to fund the collective bargaining agreements (Articles 39 and 40). The library union’s FY07 agreement was voted last year. The library FY08, and all unions except fire and police have agreed for FY07 and FY08. Fire and police negotis are ongoing for FY07 and FY08. The agreements include 2.5% salary increase in FY07, 3% in FY08, and an additional .5% increase once a change in health care copayments is implemented. It will cost approximately $600,000 in FY07 and $1.2M in FY08 to cover this. The manager outlined th sources for the funding. I think the agreements that have been made are headed in the right direction. They will, hopefully, help the town manage the cost of health care and keep and attract a skilled and motivated workforce.

Next up was hiring an Energy Manager, Article 43. The manager didn’t think this was a good idea at this time, but was creating a working group to look at energy managerment. He mentioned the hiring of the new DPW head, John Bean is coming from Greenfield and starts April 17. Seems like the right way to go, to me. There is good work to be done in this area, but it may be best performed by a consultant. I’m not ready to sign up for a permanent position in this area without more data.

Articles 48, 49, 50, 53, and 54 were all briefly discussed. The first three are relatively small-number appropriations for celebrations, commissions, and micellaneous spending. The other two are big-ticket, no-interest loans from the MWRA.

The manager shared a memo that he gave to the Board of Selectmen about the governor’s proposed budget. Overall, the budget includes about $400,000 less than the town had budgeted.

The Veteran’s Rink capital costs were discussed. The manager talked about pushing for private or state funding to mitigate the cost to the town. I remain skeptical of this plan. It’s a lot of money to commit without a real plan. There’s nothing to actually vote on until next year, so we’ll see how it shapes up.

The manager expressed support for Article 18 and the importance of having a strong IT department.

The manager is still working on the Venner Road property (discussed at last year’s Town Meeting here and here).

There were several other questions and discussions, including Symmes sale, Spy Pond maintenance, grafitti, fire department overtime and regionalization of government services. (I think I captured the big ones, and I apologize if I left one out).

Christine Connolly gave a presentation about the reorganization of departments into the current Health and Human Services. The bottom line of Budget 21 was a bit smaller than it used to be. I don’t know how old she is, but I think I might be older than her. If so, that would be the first person younger than me in the room in the last year (Sean Garballey on 3/20/06, clearly has me beat). I’m not sure why I bring this up. It’s just that in everything else I do in my life, I’m surrounded by people my age or younger. It’s odd to me that at the age of 34 I’m the young one. What really matters: It was a good presentation. UPDATE: It turns out that one of my fellow committee members, Dean Carman, is a full 5 years younger than me. For some reason I thought he was born in 1970, but I was giving him 7 years credit! My point is less compelling now. Don’t worry, Dean, 30 isn’t too bad. There were a few questions about fees and state reimbursements for veterans’ expenses.

The committee reviewed a $130,000 transfer request from the annual reserve fund to the workman’s compensation budget. The request detailed the reasons for the out-of-budget expenses. The committee had been warned previously that this was coming, and the request was approved. Just like that, 37% of our reserves get used.

Article 57 was up next. This had been discussed in general terms at a previous meeting. The article is to further fund the OPEB liability (general discussion of OPEB here). The article combines the money that has previously been funded, this year’s contribution, the increased retiree health care payments, and Medicare Part D payments into the base OPEB fund. I made a motion that 50% of the Medicare Part D payments go into this fund with the intent that the other part of the Medicare Part D funds go towards the health insurance budget. Keep reading – I’m about to take a U-turn. I said that I was concerned that the federal government was giving us this money to compensate us for providing health care prescription benefits, and we were spending the money on something else. I said that I knew that the Selectmen had chosen to dedicate these funds to the OPEB liability as a part of their vote to increase the retiree health care premium from 10% to 15%, but I noted that doesn’t require that FinCom agree with the decision. The counter-argument was made that we are spending the money entirely on health care, particularly for retirees. Furthermore the change would disrupt a political practicality: the selectmen would be in trouble if we removed one of the terms of their deal. The subtext to this argument, of course, is the 5-year plan. If the health insurance line item can be made to look smaller than a 7% increase, then the plan allows for the town and school budgets to rise by more than they did in FY07. I made the amendment in good faith. Until that night I hadn’t heard the argument for putting the Medicare Part D funds towards OPEB. I had heard that it was true, but hadn’t questioned the decision. I should have asked the question earlier; at least I asked it before the vote, not after! The argument against my amendment was compelling. It was the end of the meeting and we were running out of time. I didn’t get a chance to explain my vote. As it was, I voted against my own amendment. I’d been convinced by the discussion to change my mind. I’m sure that everyone in the room thought I was crazy or wasting their time or both. It wasn’t my intent. I had real questions about the motion, and the discussion resolved them. My amendment failed 3-12. The main motion carried.

Jeremy’s Birthday

Afterwards, Jeremy and I went to Mom’s house. You can see that she has a very large puddle in the front yard. Water in the front yard tends to go into the basement unless it is piped into the back yard. The problem is that the drainage pipe was still frozen solid. The front yard’s pond was growing.
… Read and see more at Tabblo

Finance Committee on the Capital Budget, More

(Black text is mostly objective, red text is mostly subjective in nature.)

We had a productive meeting tonight, and even finished 4 minutes early – 9:56PM.

The first item was a hearing about Article 55, about creating a committee to look into trying to add Arlington as a stop on the “Liberty Bus” for tourists. I think we asked for the hearing because we thought this was a funding article, but it turns out it was only a committee, not an appropriation. With no money involved, it was a quick hearing.

The personnel budget was up next. This budget includes a new position at about $40,000 salary who will be responsible for managing the health insurance questions, answers, and administration in town. This involves things like helping employees and retirees with questions and making sure that the monthly billing accurately reflects the monthly enrollment. (Births, marriages, spouse job changes, etc. all lead to a churn that needs to be tracked).

When I heard about the new position I asked if there was any sort of quantitative backing for it. Is there any record of the number of walk-in visitors? Nubmer of phone calls? Number of missed enrollments? Back-of-the-envelope demonstration of the savings to the town, or an outline of the services being provided? I didn’t see one. When I need to convince my boss that we need a new hire, I have to make the case. I have to do the homework and explain the need and the costs, the pros and the cons. The decision to hire or not hinges on whether or not it can be justified.

It frustrates me that the town does not make decisions this way. I had the same complaint last year about the decision to create a new revolving fund and hire someone from that fund. That position may be a good one. This new insurance poistion might be a good one. But we don’t have the data or rationale to make the decision!

There’s another element to this that raises the stakes considerably. $40,000 is the salary. But, the town will pay 85% of the person’s health care, and pay for the person’s retirement, and pay for the person’s health care while they are retired. Really, we’re talking about adding something like $100,000 to this year’s budget.

One final point: the salary cost for this position won’t appear in the personnel budget. It’s being billed to the health insurance budget. I can see where the data might justify this, but again, the data isn’t really there to evaluate.

The budget was approved with two dissenting votes, including mine. (15-2 I think, but you’ll have to double-check the minutes).

The Capital Planning Committee was up next. They gave a detailed presentation that, with questions, lasted longer than an hour. They reviewed historical spending, talked about planning philosphy, and reviewed several of this year’s individual line items. We reviewed spending on libraries, schools, sewer and water, roads, fire, and police. There was also discussion of the Veteran’s Rink.

The Capital Committee made it clear that it did not think that the anticipated capital expeditures could be covered by the enterprise fund. This will be an issue for a while, unfortunately.

The capital budget was recommended unanimously.

The committee discussed Article 61. We reviewed a handout from Charlie Foskett. The gist of the issue is that the budgeting for health care is as close as it reasonably can be to actual expenditures. Furthermore, even if you try to correct for the inaccuracies, the budget doesn’t improve. Voted no action unanimously.

The Public Safety Support Services budget was passed unanimously.

The Veteran’s budget is up again because of increased veteran’s aid. The presumed causes are Iraq and increasing number of retirees. Passed unanimously.

Two Nights of FinComm – Everything Else

The only budgets approved on Monday were the Treasurer’s – his budget, Parking, and Postage.

I sit on the subcommittee that reviews these budgets. It wasn’t easy. Treasurer Stephen Gilligan’s requests exceed the 4% of five-year plan by a significant amount. Also, his proposed budget included moving the payroll department from the school budget to his budget. There was significant wrangling over the last few weeks.

The treasurer didn’t have an agreement with the superintendent on the payroll move, so we recommended against that move, at least for now. We also recommended against increasing the number of hours for a couple of positions within the budget. Finally, we approved a portion of the requested increase for legal fees to be paid to former treasurer John Bilafer to help execute tax liens and such.

In the end the budget goes up 4.5%, but the postage and parking budgets go up 3% and 2%, so it works out to 4.00% increase between the three.

I voted yes, but just barely. This increase is too much. I remain hopeful that the treasurer will move on several cost-saving measures. No one voted no on the budget, but there were others who share these concerns and abstained or voted yes with an eye on future changes.

On Wednesday the first hearing was from the Council on Aging. They have two warrant articles. The first is a request for $7500 to fund jobs for the town where senior citizens can work off part of their tax bill. Last year I voted against this because I didn’t think it made sense to fund these positions outside of the departments where the work is done. I still think that is a better idea, but at $7500, it just isn’t worth arguing about. Items like the Minuteman Voc budget or the town’s use of IT are better uses of my time. The $7500 was approved.

The Minuteman Senior Services was the second article. They wanted $9200 as a “fair share” of the more than $2 million in services they provide. Most of the group’s money comes from the state. Arlington has declined to pay this for the last few years because of budget pressures, but it was approved 15-2 for ’08. I voted yes. I was swayed by the argument that community support makes a difference when asking for other funding. We’re getting good services return on our dollar here.

I presented the Comptroller’s budget. There were two significant changes. First, there was a retirement in the phone operator area, so we cut the budget from 1.8 FTE to 1.3 FTE. That 1.3 FTE should be enough to always have a human being available to answer the phone. The second was as shuffling of items in the expenses to more accurately reflect spending.

It’s worth pointing out that the consulting line item, budgeted at $3000, is again overspent – probably by more than $25,000. That would continue a trend of more than $250,000 in overspending on that item over the last 5 years.

The 200th Anniversary Committee returned and presented their budget in more detail. When we voted the budget I offered an amendment to fund $1000, but the amendment lost 3-14. The amount of $6200 was approved 13-4. I think the committee is doing a great job, but I’d prefer that taxpayers didn’t pay for such items. Private funding is sufficient. And yes, Steve: I’ll gladly write another check!

The public safety Adminstration budget was approved as presented.

The police budget was next. The lively topic of discussion was the overtime budget, which is overspent again. The overtime is funded by the unspent salaries on vacant positions. This lineitem shifting has been sufficient and the department hasn’t needed a transfer. I agreed with members who argued that the lineitems should be changed to reflect reality. The chief and the manager can run the department exactly as they have been doing, but the budget should show the “real” numbers, not a fiction.

If I had my way we’d budget the salaries less and overtime more, which is exactly how the money is being spent. For whatever reason the committee chooses to budget regular salaries that no one expects to spend and budget a level of overtime spending that no one expects will be correct.

UPDATE: I got an email that this wasn’t clear, so here are the numbers. Overtime has been budgeted at $250,000 for the last three years. FY05 actual overtime spending was $480k, FY06 was $423k, and FY07 is on pace for more than $400k. The total police budget does not go over because the chief pays overtime out of the lineitem marked for salaries. He has salary money unused because there are always vacancies – retirements, job changes, etc. The FY08 salary lineitem is $4.2m, but everyone knows that won’t be entirely spent – there will always be a vacancy (or 2 or 4) because of turnover. If I had my preference we’d fund the salary item at, say, $4.0m and overtime at $450k. The bottom line is the same, the chief has the flexibility that he needs, and the budget is a better, more accurate document.

There was a motion to increase the lineitem for salaries, and increase the bottom line by the same amount. This failed without a single supporting vote. I wonder what the vote would have been if the motion was a zero-sum change that shifted money between lineitems. The budget was then passed.

The issue will come up again with the fire department. The difference there is that the fire department’s overtime spending has broken the budget and forced several fund transfers.

The inspectional services budget was approved.

Two Nights of FinComm – Minuteman

I was too pooped/distracted to write after either meeting this week – the notes are late, but here they go. Minuteman Voc figured prominently both nights so I’ll start there.

Superintendent Bill Callahan, Assistant Superintendent Tom Markham, and Arlington’s representative to the Minuteman School Committee, Laura Morrissette were there on Monday to present and answer questions. I’m going to condense almost two hours of discussion into a few paragraphs.

The budget is a 3.8% increase over last year. Arlington’s enrollment is down 10%. Because of the district funding formula, Arlington’s assessment went up 11%, $400,000, to $3,276,622. That is, of course, far outside the 4% in the 5-year plan.

  • Superintendent Callahan is retiring. The board is conducting a search.
  • The school is working to reverse the enrollment slump. The slump is particularly in the freshman and senior classes.
  • The school can handle 900+ students and is far below that number.
  • The board is considering reducing the 20+ programs to a lower number in order to reduce costs.
  • Class size is between 15 and 20 depending on the class area, with 7-8 for special ed resource rooms.
  • The state continues to fail to fund what it once promised. For instance, the law requires that the state fund 100% of transportation costs, but hasn’t met that in ages. The budget hopes for 80% funding.
  • Most of the increase in the budget is in salaries, while all of the academic areas were cut. There are some outstanding questions about the salaries that I’m waiting for answers on.

FinComm had previously heard that Arlington was blocking Minuteman from visiting or recruiting. This prompted several questions. It came out that Arlington was the only school denying access to 7th and 8th graders. The degree of cooperation of the 16 towns varies, but Arlington was the most restricted. This was controversial, and I expect it to come up when the school budget is heard.

There were a zillion questions about why the funding works out the way it does. I’ve spent hours looking at this stuff, and I’m following up on a few inquries. It’s not easy to figure out the Minuteman finances. Enrollment has been a challenge for years. They’ve developed a number of part-time programs to make better use of the capacity, including out-of-district students, placing teachers in middle schools, and after school programs. Sorting through the various costs and assessments is a real challenge.

  • The Full Time Equivalent student (FTE) is the unit that is most commonly used. Arlington has 156 FTE high school students, and 171 FTE in total programming. Minuteman has 445 in-district FTE high school students, and 635 in-district FTE programming. There are 245 out-of-district FTE students, for a total of 882 FTE.
  • Note that barely half on Minutman’s budget is for in-district high school education.
  • The ’08 budget is $16.7 million. Basic division shows that as $18,900 in cost per FTE pupil. But, that includes things like the 125 FTE in middle school teaching that is only $3200 per FTE! When you take out some of the part-time programs, the per-student cost of regular high school students starts to approach $25,000 per year. There is more research to be done here.
  • Out-of-district students pay between $13,500 and $15,500 in tuition.

The hearing finished on Monday. On Wednesday, FinComm discussed the budget.

  • There was discussion about the long-term future of Minuteman. It seems doubtful that Minuteman can attract enough students from the 16 towns. Attracting another town also seems like a long shot.
  • There is no realistic way to get out of the district – legislative action and even a statewide petion were discussed.
  • Minuteman is doing a good job of controlling costs (2%, 3%, and 3.75% increases) but the Arlington assessment keeps going up by more that 10% each year.
  • A significant part of the problem is the state government. The state encouraged towns to create schools, and offered 50% funding as a carrot. It has not lived up to its end of the bargain.

In the end, approval of the budget was recommended by a vote of 12-5. I was one of the five that opposed the budget. I appreciate the educational opportunities that Minuteman offers. But, there has to be another way. It just doesn’t make sense for Arlington to pay so much per student and subsidize other towns’ students. I didn’t vote no because I had a ready alternative. I voted so that Minuteman, the state, and the voters of Arlington know that the status quo is not acceptable.

First Thoughts on Patrick’s First Budget

I can hear you mumbling: “But Dan, the budget is a whole week old. Aren’t you ready with a penetrating, insightful, line-by-line analysis?” No, I’m not. See previous post. And remember that I have a job that I like. You’re going to have to settle for highlights for now.

  • Patrick claims that his budget is free of “financial gimmicks and shell games.” I’m not convinced. For starters, the state is required to stock away $100 million per year in the rainy day fund. Skipping this payment is defensible if you define this year as a “rainy” year, but that argument doesn’t hold water (har har). Look at the state’s 8-year history (from the ’08 document).’08 is not a bad year for the state.

    The state’s revenue sources are variable in nature. Anyone who balances a checkbook (or even pays a credit card) knows that you have to be prudent in rich years so that you can make ends meet in lean years.

    Patrick also is taking $75 million from the rainy day fund – the interest the fund would have earned. This is one of those decisions that seems so easy, but makes the future so much more difficult. I feel safe predicting that Massachusetts will see another recession. The odds are that we’ll have a recession during Patrick’s term of office. When it hits, he’s going to look at the ’08 budget with deep regret.

    There are those that claim this isn’t a significant point. I haven’t found a defense of this budgetary choice that didn’t have the shrill voice of partisanship. It’s a bad idea that, if enacted, will cost the state dearly in the future.

  • I don’t think Patrick budgeted enough in aid for cities and towns (particularly schools). Arlington’s Town Manager had this premliminary assessment of the state figures and how they compared to the 5-year budget plan: “It is an increase of approximately $295,000. We are carrying an estimate of $400,000. State assessments are also $78,000 higher than estimated so there is a total negative impact of approximately $183,000.”

    That number could be mitigated if the state were picking up more of the tab in other areas. But I don’t see any compensation in the MWRA, MBTA, or regional school funding. This budget doesn’t do what Arlington had hoped.

  • Along the same vein: Patrick made a promise to tackle the property tax. In his budget statement he said: “we have held local aid steady and increased state aid to schools by more than $200 million. By doing this, by enacting the proposals in our Municipal Partnership bill, and by implementing the direct tax credit proposed in our budget, pressure to increase local property taxes will be relieved and property taxes for thousands of homeowners will actually start to decline.” This statement is a mixture of fact and half-truths.

    I know that writing a budget is hard. I know that he can’t make everyone happy. But when the challenge is too hard, when the budget falls short, he should admit it. He shouldn’t smile and pretend that the challenge has been met.

    Holding local aid steady and increasing school aid by $200 million are not things to be proud of. They’re better than nothing, but they not scoring points with the municipal budget makers.

    The municipal partnership bill, if passed, would permit cities and towns to increase the hotel tax and permit a meals tax. That helps Boston and the Cape, but doesn’t do much for places that aren’t tourist destinations. Sure, it takes pressure off the property tax, but it’s taxing the exact same people as the property holders.

    Finally, the tax credit is not a reduction in the property tax. It’s an income tax credit to certain qualifying people who pay a property tax. Yes, it means that thousands of people will pay less. Yes, it makes the property tax a more progressive tax. But does it relieve the pressure to increase property taxes? Does it help cities and towns balance their budgets? It does not.

  • The Globe printed an allegation that the state wasn’t meeting educational funding goals. I haven’t found any corroboration or a rebuttal. The quote was from Republican Brian Dodge: “Dodge pointed to state aid for local schools, an account Patrick increased by $200 million over this year. Under a formula contained in the current year’s budget, however, local education aid was supposed to increase next year by $255 million.” I’m very curious to see the full story on this line item. If it’s true, I wonder why we haven’t heard yet from the teacher’s union.
  • Despite the rhetoric, Patrick vindicates some of Romney’s controversial vetos. In 2006, Romney vetoed $2 million for a the Turning 22 program (a transitional program for mentally disabled people). Beacon Hill Roll Call notes that that in December the “House 156-0, Senate 37-0, overrode Gov. Romney’s $2 million veto reduction (from $8.5 million to $6.5 million) in funding for the Turning 22 Program.” Romney cut the same money a second time with the emergency spending cuts he imposed in October. Patrick reversed those cuts when took office. But, when Patrick made his own budget, he reinstated the cut and made it larger: $3 million cut, to $5.5 million.

    If Romney (or Healey, or any non-Democrat) had made this cut I believe there would have been a protest. It would have been another case of the heartless Republicans hurting the most vulnerable citizens. When a Democrat makes the cuts, there is a muted protest. I don’t have an opinion on this particular program (I know next to nothing about it). I am disappointed the party of the budget cutter matters more than the cut.

  • I had to find something I liked this budget. It wasn’t hard. During the Q&A after his budget speech, Patrick answered a question from a homelessness prevention activist. I forget the question exactly, but the answer was: “I’m combining the 11 budgets for homelessness into 2 budgets. The goal is to house everyone, and to wrap them in the support services they need to stay housed and healthy.” I like it because of the attitude it represents. It is willing to ignore the beauracracy and institution that has developed. It ignores the associated sense of entitlement. It looks at the root of the problem and redefines the way money is spent so that it is focused on solving the problem, not on how to fund the existing programs.

I know that budgeting is not easy. It would take a miracle to make a budget that did everything for everyone. This budget demonstrates that Patrick can’t perform miracles.

I still want Patrick to succeed. This budget was a chance to convert me from a hopeful skeptic to a fervent supporter. So far, I feel more like a jaded observer. This budget is going to the legislature. I fully expect them to put their greasy fingerprints on every page, earmarking here and shifting there. If this budget had something worth fighting for, Patrick could probably leverage his popularity and keep the legislature at bay. I just can’t see anything worth fighting for.

I Went To Denver and Changed a Diaper

I’ve been a bit light on the posting lately. The town budget cycle keeps me busy with a few meetings every week, plus work of course. Last week was particularly busy in all respects. At least I remembered to take pictures. Here’s your chance to catch up: two tabblos and a post on the Tabblo corporate blog.

John and Carey got to Denver on Wednesday morning. They had an empty both, a black rug, and a few large boxes waiting for them.

See more from Denver

Just before I went to bed last night, I got a call. Sarah was having contractions, could I come spend the night with Max?

The good news is that he pretty much slept through the night.

Just as Max woke up, Dan (Max’s dad) called. Max has a baby brother, Theodore Bridges Sheldon! At 4lbs 15oz, Theo and mom are doing OK. I told Max, and he seemed pretty cool about it. Perhaps even “indifferent.”
… See more with Max