GilfordGrok

After last week's excitement, I think it’s wise to move to another area of the town’s budget. Keep in mind we still have Deliberative sessions coming up and a Forum at the GES on the staff cuts. I am going to attempt to attend both events to see where it goes.

I couldn’t help but notice the number problems popping up in communities that are living under a “tax cap”. This would include our neighboring city of Laconia who is signaling of budget trouble in covering salary increases. Given the fact that the tax cap is based on inflationary figures and revenues, I’d say those figures suggest the committed raises will be in jeopardy. One might conclude that the formula used to derive a “tax cap” reflects much of what we’re seeing in our economy. This might explain why the private sector is forced to lay workers off, issue no raises and stop contributing matching dollars to retirement programs. Shouldn’t these things be telling us something? Is it right for government to continue on as though nothing is wrong?

Merrill Fay of Fay’s Boat Yard, spoke at the last Public Hearing and suggested that the town’s leaders are living in a “bubble”. The town’s business goes on as though times haven’t changed. Do you think he’s right? I do!

Meanwhile, on the municipal side of the budget, the beat goes on. There were essentially three issues in debate on the municipal budget.

1)      Supervisors of the check list – If it weren’t for the fact that these folks are elected officials, I’d completely agree with them. There also seems to be misunderstanding on this issue. As I recall, the BudCom voted to approve the original number that was in the very first budget. After the BudCom voted for the original figure, Selectman Hayes said there was a meeting with the Supervisors to discuss their request. He told the Budcom that if anything changed as a result of the meeting then it would be brought back to the Committee. It was later brought back to the committee with a higher dollar amount by the Board of Selectmen twice and rejected. There seems to be some misunderstanding that the BudCom changed this number lower. I believe the meeting minutes would show this not to be the case.

2)      Library – This one is an OUTRAGE! If we are to believe that politics is a process of give and take and compromise is the spice of life then this issue should never have come back up. The BudCom meeting on the library budget was ugly but that happens when a lone department comes to the table with double the percent increase over all the other departments (with the exception of budgets that had large fuel requirements.) After much debate from cutting a very large amount, to add bits and pieces back in, it was settled at about a 4.5% increase from last year. Apparently this “compromise” wasn’t satisfactory for the Library. They wanted it ALL! So, they came up with a colorful way to present it to the Selectmen and the Public Hearing. They made the claim that “if you remove the Salary increases then the requested money would level fund the operating expenses from last year.” WOW!!!!! This is really disingenuous because the public wouldn’t know that the library added a part time staff member unless they attended all the meetings. A part time staff member they snuck in, between budget cycles. The BudCom reluctantly agreed that the increase in circulation justified the part time employee and suggested that the increase in labor needed to be off set with some reductions in other spending. How the Selectmen bought into this pretzel logic of omitting the salary increase to come up with a level funded number, is beyond imagination. Fortunately the BudCom saw the request for what it was and voted down the added amount. Unfortunately, I’ll be largely misunderstood on this issue because I understand the need for a community library, I just don’t believe it has to grow without limits. Given the amount of total responsibilities to provide essential services, it is only prudent that tax payers should only have to fund a reasonable amount for one particular non essential service. The volume of people that use the library has no bearing on the growth of the budget beyond standard inflationary amounts.    

3)      Outside Agencies – This issue is like a bad penny that just will not go away. The good news is that these requests remain as Warrant Articles to be decided by voters. I have given some lengthy speeches about my findings on this subject. Yes, I spent plenty of time researching the need for this money. I discovered the MYTH, that our town would have to pay a lot more money if these agencies weren’t around to provide the service for us. First let’s clarify that these agencies do great things. There is NO DISPUTING THIS. Putting the emotional hysteria aside, one must realize that these agencies put themselves in the business of obtaining grants that are dispersed to people who qualify for the benefit. They are required, by law, to provide that service to anyone that qualifies. They are the mechanism that the State of NH uses to disperse Federal and State money for Social programs. Gilford residents pay at the County, State, and Federal level as well as their electric bill for some programs and their mortgage for others. In my opinion, this cottage industry has gotten completely out of control. At this point, I believe, the State could create the biggest bloated government agency and it wouldn’t even come close to the money that flows through the non profit agencies cottage industry. None of which can be questioned by the tax payers that fund it!! We need to get these agencies off the local pay roll FOREVER! I hoped the Selectmen would have listened to the voters last year but they did not. They either caved in politically or they simply chose to ignore the majority of voters. The BudCom listened to the voters and did NOT recommend any Warrant Articles for outside agencies. The two outside agencies that passed by the majority of voters last year were funded in the operating budget. It should be noted that BudCom members listened to the voters and even those opposed to outside agencies still voted for the two agencies that were approved by the voters.     

I wonder about the mood of the voters this year. Many fear for their jobs, not seeing raises and seeing no contributions to their retirement funds. In the beginning, I saw the budget as pushing but not exceeding the envelope for today’s shaky financial times. Now, I’m concerned that these last minute additions will enrage the majority. Again, in my opinion, the final days of crafting the budgets at the Deliberative Sessions will shape the tone on voting day.