Sum still at $2.9M
Published on April 14th, 2004
STONEHAM, MA - In a narrow 5-4 vote on Monday night, the town's Finance Board revisited its endorsement of a $2.9 million override and advocated for a reduced figure ranging from $1.5 to $2 million.
After Finance Board Chairman John Warren announced his board's findings Tuesday night amidst the animated chatter and whispered objections of audience members who had seconds before sat in a dulled silence, the town's Board of Selectmen rejected the notion of reducing the override amount.
"We don't have enough information to go from $2.9 million to $1.5 million. This was just showcased to us tonight," remarked Selectman Bob Sweeney.
"I can not go along with that," added Selectman Tony Kennedy, saying several important offices still needed funds restored under the $2.9 million override budget.
According to an Email sent from Warren to Town Administrator David Berry, the Finance Board's decision to stand behind a slashed override stemmed from three factors: 1) the affordability of the proposed override to citizens, 2) increases in fringe benefits to Stoneham employees such as salary increases, and 3) a belief that a reduced override amount would not significantly harm or alter real-estate values in the town.
A major proponent of a $1.5 to $2 million override, Finance Board member Peter D'Angelo commented in a post-meeting interview that with a $2.9 million override, citizens should expect a 12.5 percent increase in their FY05 taxes, an unaffordable percentage for many residents of fixed incomes.
"We're talking about a $2.9 million override. That itself on a $30 million real-estate tax levy would be a 10 percent increase. That's without the normal 2.5 percent addition, so you're talking about a 12.5 percent tax increase," explained D'Angelo.
"If you're paying $4000 a year in taxes, that's a $500 increase and that's an issue. I can afford that, so I'm not talking from a personal standpoint. What I'm worried about is our seniors on a fixed income," the former Finance Board Chairman added.
Commenting on a second issue, a yearly increase in fringe benefits for town employees such as salary raises and extending pensions and health insurance benefits to part-time workers, D'Angelo believes its unfair to force citizens to shoulder those costs when the town's retirement board and employee unions were well aware of the town's dire financial status during negotiations.
"With constantly increasing salaries, I just don't feel you can take that aspect and pass it on. And these are the types of things that are driving a $3 million override," D'Angelo said.
"People are always saying, 'why can't we institute a salary freeze?' And from a collective bargaining standpoint, I can understand employees saying, 'no, we deserve a cost of living increase.' But in the private sector, there's layoffs, there's salary reductions, there's all sorts of things happening that aren't occurring in the public sector."
A long-time opponent of an override who agrees with D'Angelo, Selectman Cosmo Ciccarello has continually blasted the negotiated raises as selfish given the fiscal climate. In fact, in an affirmative executive session vote directing Berry to endorse a 6.75 percent raise to the town's school unions, Ciccarello and Sweeney were the only two Selectmen to vote against the measure.
While Ciccarello has since voted in favor of a $2.9 million override for the purposes of allowing the people to decide the fate of a proposition 2 1/2 ballot question, he agreed with reducing the override amount as the Finance Board had suggested.
"In my opinion, I'd rather see no override," said Ciccarello at Tuesday's Selectman meeting. "But if you're going to go along with an override that has a chance of passing, the $1.5 to $2 million is better."
In a dissenting opinion that showed the sharp divide between Finance Board members over a reduced override, Finance Board member Richard Gregorio advised the Selectmen that if they were to reduce the figure, the town would inherit another deficit in FY06.
"The only point that I made last night is that with a $1.5 million override, I'm showing a very large deficit in FY06," Gregorio remarked.
While D'Angelo agrees that a deficit would indeed surface in FY06, he believes that town officials would have a year to seriously address the problem. Opining that the town's leadership did virtually nothing to address this year's $4.3 million deficit despite having a year to suggest creative solutions, D'Angelo feels that a reduced override presents the only opportunity to force town officials to act responsibly next year.
"If you look in the booklet, you'll see that last year at the May 2003 Town Meeting, we predicted a $4.3 million deficit. And the leaders of this town have not come to grips with what needed to be done. So my view on that is shame on us, we haven't done our jobs and we shouldn't pass that on to the taxpayers," said D'Angelo.
"So my answer to that [deficit argument] is we have a year to work on it guys. Let's not do nothing like we did last year. We need to get the boards to do their job," he added.
Although the Finance Board member regrets the fact that a reduced override will result in more layoffs, he considers it the financially responsible thing to do.
"Look, it's a difficult decision to say you want to make deep cuts in services, don't get me wrong. But sometimes, you just have to say no. We have to come together as elected officials for doing more. And we should all be chastised for doing nothing over the past year."
According to D'Angelo, any override should only address what he termed reoccurring structural problems within the budget, such as the $1 million pension liability, increased health insurance costs, and school department budget breakers like special education.
The $2.9 million override
After voting down the Finance Board's request for a reduced override, the Selectmen continued to refund municipal departments with the town's $1.45 million share of the override.
Despite a series of 2-2 voting deadlocks last week (with Sweeney being absent) that prevented the town's assistant building inspector and community developer from receiving funds under an override budget, the Selectmen did not revisit the department expenditures.
Instead, board members voted only to return $10,621 back into the town administrator's budget, which was reduced by $79,000 under a zero-override budget.
The $10,000, initially proposed by Smith, would increase both the human resource and benefits coordinators workweek by four hours each.
In a separate line item in the town administrator's budget, the Selectmen also voted to return $6000 to the office for the Finance Board's clerk position. However, the funds for that expenditure were transferred over from money already returned last week to the reserve account. As a result of the new votes, approximately $285,000 of the override will continue to fund the town's stabilization or rainy day account.
Selectmen Reorganization
Following their tradition of reorganizing its board after an election, the Selectmen welcomed their newest board member, Rebecca Lane resident John DePinto, who ousted former Selectman Chair Mary Pecoraro in last Tuesday's election. To fill the organizational void left by Pecoraro's defeat, the Selectmen voted Ciccarello the newest Chairman. Sweeney was voted as Vice-Chair and Kennedy was appointed Secretary. Although the vote to appoint Ciccarello the chairman was unanimous, Smith worried that people might be wary to come before the board out of a fear of Ciccarello, who is serving his seventh-term as a Selectman.
"Cosmo, I appreciate everything you've done for this town in the past. But I'm going to speak my mind here because that's what you've always told me to do. I believe that as you take over as chairman, some people will be stifled by you. So I'd like to say to anybody who wants to come before the Board of Selectman to speak, that you should feel free to come down.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!