"Selectman Lannen, Smedelie, Manager Rees, will you step down from your position if you are wrong about the revenue projects that you are making this year?"

What about Caggiano, Nardella, and Watson? Don't they count?

Rick Nardella & Tracy Watson did not create this budget, therefore should not be obligated to carry the weight of it. This was the budget of the previous board of selectman. Both Nardella and Watson were only elected to the BOS about 6 weeks ago so I think that requesting this of them is very unfair.

So Caggiano should take the fall too? Why is he left out?

Didn't all of the current Selectmen vote on the budget that is advanced to the Town Meeting? Aren't they responsible for their votes?

I agree with you, PHA.

Smedlie and Lannen were the ones quoted in the Eagle Trashbune.

Good Morning...

At the end of the day ALL currently elected Board of Selectmen voted in FAVOR of the budget set forth by Town Manager Mark Rees. As to whether any of us would be willing to resign our positions for "revenue projections" is a whole other matter. Projections are just that....projections...predictions, estimates, etc. they are not however written in stone numbers. But I am a true believer that the good as well as the bad should be projected. Somewhere in the middle lies the truest numbers. But that aside I believe that it is time to begin to talk more about what is truly hurting our community and contributing to the possible "crunch" ahead. The reality is that it is not debt service amounts that will hurt us in the future but health care costs.

Health care costs have risen on average 9.76% over the last eight years. This is where we need to control our spending. We need to put our focus on how we can control these costs and not arbitrarily cut funding for two very needed capital projects. Please keep in mind that there is only a window of opportunity for the Town to purchase the Credit Union building. Once that window is closed it is gone and I personally do not see an opportunity such as this coming to light in the near future. Putting this off, yet again, may only put us farther behind the eight ball than we ever thought we would be. If the anticipated dooms day arrives won't we be better off to have moved forward with these projects and at least be ahead of the game in infrastructure?

All of this is a balancing act based on "possibles" and "unknowns" really. We each need to decide what we feel is best for the community as a whole. I believe, along with my fellow Selectmen, as well as the Town Manager, Finance Director and the School Committee that what has been set forth is the best option for our community. I hope tonight you do too.

Thank you for your time in reading this!
Tracy

QUOTE:
The reality is that it is not debt service amounts that will hurt us in the future but health care costs.

All 'costs' are equal; they all come from the same budget. When some costs expand faster than anticipated in one area you need to make decisions not to spend money in other areas to cover the increase. Simple (if unpleasant), no? In a very tight budget you most certainly don't begin new spending programs unless expected revenue covers both the increased new spending and the increased 'old' spending. Fantasy projections of anticipated revenue only compounds the 'hurting our community.'

'Health care costs' will not be corrected by good intentions. Selectmen have limited control over the total employee contracts (of which health costs are only a part). The School Committee negotiates the contracts for the largest number of employees. We need to know if the School Committee succeeds in negotiating a contract North Andover can afford. (The last contract was a disaster for the town. The School Committee membership has changed but the 'progressive' mindset remains. IMHO, there is little hope here.)

There is nothing arbitrary about prudence in spending.

QUOTE:
If the anticipated dooms day arrives won't we be better off to have moved forward with these projects and at least be ahead of the game in infrastructure?

We'll be faced with very real cuts in teachers if the 'anticipated doom' arrives. None of those cuts will be from Special Education. Should we have new shiny buildings we can't afford to staff?

I agree with Tracy, the cost of health care is of enormous concern. If we were to join the State Health Insurance Plan, "GIC", their costs have been increasing in the 6% range. So we'd still be experiencing significant cost increases in health care, but it would be at a slower rate. By the way, since the town manager used reserve funds to lower our health care costs for FY09, we're going to see a 20% jump in our health costs in FY2010...

And, true, the debt service alone is not what is pushing us into negative numbers. But taking on new debt is within our control, whereas choosing not to settle contracts or not to pay health insurance cost increases isn't a realistic option.

NAU is DEFINITELY NOT saying don't build the police station and preschool; NAU IS saying, "Wait until after October 1st, by which time we should know if you settled affordable contracts, whether the town joined the GIC, and whether we will have free cash for 2010, and what our up-to-date revenue and expense reports show."

Do we risk losing the Credit Union? Possibly. But if the fincom is right, and Mark Rees is wrong, we risk losing a total of over 300 town employees and/or services between 2010 and 2015.

Sincerely,
Sandy Gleed

Tracy -

I disagree with your treatment of the estimates. "Somewhere in the middle" is not the way to go about making a huge capital investment.

It is like buying a house and counting on getting a big raise to make the payments on it. In business terms, it is like opening a big factory because you think your product might sell.

At least in terms of the police station, the town has considered the project for years. No one is saying that the fiscal picture is gotten better since then. But all of a sudden, the Selectmen and town manager are saying "we can do it."

It seems foolhardy to me to risk the long-term fiscal future of the town on this proposal. It would be much more financially prudent to do a debt exclusion override and commit to a certain fiscal impact. Once we start down this road, we have to finish the project with existing revenues. In 2010 or 2011, there would be a need for more revenue in the form of an open-ended override for operating expenses.

Thanks,

Bill Callahan