First, three important related facts:
1. $1.9 million difference between projected income and the cost of maintaining Amherst’s current services next year.
2. “We don’t have buckets of state money. There’s not a lot of money out there.” State Senator Michael R Knapik, Republican from Westfield.
3. The average American wage earner saw no increase in her or his pay between the year 2000 and 2005 (relative to inflation). The average earner did get a raise in 2006. Period.
“The $1.9 million problem” (to quote a Finance Committee report) reflects the Committee’s projection of reduced new growth and fees from construction because of the difficulties in real estate. But I believe they may be over-optimistic about state aid, estimating a 3% increase in the two major types of state aid.
The budgets for the current year are very tight; for the town and elementary schools, they are 1% more than the previous year; for the library and regional schools, Town Meeting voted budgets 3% larger than the previous year (although there are some additional complications in these budgets). Getting to those budgets was very difficult. The process included a failed attempt to pass a $2.5 million override as part of a five-year financial plan. The budgets that resulted have meant noticeably reduced services for residents.
The prospect for the future is grim. Any “fat” there ever was in anyone’s budget was cut long ago. The Finance Committee estimates that budgets would have to increase a lot – 5.5% for the town, elementary schools and library, and 8% for the regional schools – to maintain this already-reduced level of services. But we can’t afford those increases. A balanced budget, with no overrides, means about a 2.2% increase in all these budgets. That’s a severe cut to services, since some costs – especially for health insurance, pensions, fuels, and agreed-upon contracts with the employees’ unions – will go up more than that.
We have town elections this spring, and I’m glad to see candidates emerging. It seems likely that we’ll have contests for the two seats on the Select Board; I hope we’ll also have contests for School Committee and Library Trustees. I also hope that the current boards, and the candidates, will talk about our financial situation realistically and often. I am glad to read in the Bulletin that at least one Town Meeting member thinks the fall Special Town Meetings had an improved, more mature, tone, of dealing with the situation we are in. I hope that tone can carry over to the elections.
I recognize that few people in Amherst actually want to cut services, and hardly anyone runs for office with that as their platform. Nevertheless, it’s time for open discussion about what people think is most important to keep, and what, reluctantly, we may have to let go. What are the core functions of a town government? The core curriculum in the schools? How well can the police department function if it is cut again? Which is more important: keeping the North Amherst Library open a few hours a week or the Jones Library the same number of hours? Are the schools embarking on programs with grant funding for a few years that we then can’t afford to keep going when the grants run out?
Last year, despite a vigorous debate about the proposed “Amherst plan” (an override plus five-year plan for budgets and a promise not to ask for another override during that time) many of the people in office stayed very quiet about the most important subject facing the town. This year must be different. People running for Select Board, School Committee, or Library Trustee, should speak up about what they think are the budget priorities within their jurisdiction. With details. And no “toothfairy” proposals.
We, as voters, also have responsibiliities. First, we must pay attention to financial information, and ask questions when we don’t understand. We have an excellent group of our neighbors, the Finance Committee, and excellent staff, to provide information and answer questions.
Second, we must ask the candidates questions, and listen to the answers. We must not jump on someone who proposes cutting something we think is important; things are going to be cut, and we’re much better off having a conversation before the election about what those things might be than encouraging our n eighbors who bravely put their hats in the ring to pretend otherwise. If we don’t hold ourselves to as high a standard as citizens and voters as we want for our officials, we won’t like the kind of government we get – but it will be what we deserve.