Reining in local spending

[lawn psycho]

I think this is a good example of not relying on sales and income taxes in NH.

http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20091227-OPINION-912270313

Portsmouth actually has 5 city councilors who are holding the line with spending and actually looking to CUT spending. Imagine that!

I also agree that hefty pensions after only 20 years need to go. I know a retired police officer who worked a ton of overtime his last 5 years of working and his pension is based on his gross earnings for those last five years, not base salary. This is a lakes regions PD. Now he works traffic control details at contruction sites and gets to "rent" the police car for something like $20/day from his department so he can make $40/hr. I can't fault him for using the system, but this is the kind of stuff that needs to stop.

The reality is this is occuring in many towns and cities in NH so it's not just a Portsmouth problem....

[secondcurve]

I think this is a good example of not relying on sales and income taxes in NH.

http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20091227-OPINION-912270313

Portsmouth actually has 5 city councilors who are holding the line with spending and actually looking to CUT spending. Imagine that!

I also agree that hefty pensions after only 20 years need to go. I know a retired police officer who worked a ton of overtime his last 5 years of working and his pension is based on his gross earnings for those last five years, not base salary. This is a lakes regions PD. Now he works traffic control details at contruction sites and gets to "rent" the police car for something like $20/day from his department so he can make $40/hr. I can't fault him for using the system, but this is the kind of stuff that needs to stop.

The reality is this is occuring in many towns and cities in NH so it's not just a Portsmouth problem....

I agree. Local real estate taxes are exploding and nothing is being done to force the tough choices on local governments that are being forced on the private sector. Case in point. Tuftonboro NH. My property taxes surged 13% this year. What do we get from local government in the way of services? Basically nothing. My local association pays to pave and maintain its roads, including plowing. We pay a private company to supply our water and there is no town sewerage and there is no trash pick-up. Yes, the town supplies police and fire protection and education but that is the extent of the "services". I read in the paper last week that the town manager couldn't bring himself to support having town employees pay even a $1.00 a year of their own health insurance. This is beyond frustrating!

[Argie's Wife]

Property taxes aren't collected just for the town but the school and state as well. For the past two years most schools and town have been trying to level fund their budgets. The problem is that some costs, such as contractual items (i.e. teachers' salaries, health insurance, FICA, NH State Retirement) can't be level-funded. So, cuts are made to operating budgets to compensate. Some of the "non-essentual" items, like fireworks, are seeing big cuts. That might sound odd, but in a tourist town like mine, it is fodder for a lot of discussion.

The other issue facing towns is unforeseen expenses that will cause a budget to go over with little or no notice. A big fire, such as the Christian Conference Center in Alton Bay burning, will take out a budget in no-time, as FEMA monies take a while to come in and are only a percent of the total money spent to serve and protect. Ditto for unforeseen energy costs and legal fees (cell towers, anyone?)

Take a look a the breakdown of your taxes and your assessments. If your assessments went down and your taxes went up, as for an explanation. It may not just be that the budget is higher - there's more going on at the state level than you might be aware of.... and by all means, get involved.

[tis]

All the taxes in Tuftonboro went up 13% Nobody seems to be able to get a good answer why There sure are a lot of people upset about it though.

[breathe easy]

All the taxes in Tuftonboro went up 13% Nobody seems to be able to get a good answer why There sure are a lot of people upset about it though.

The NH Department of Revenue Administration establishes the tax rate and this link (http://www.nh.gov/revenue/munc_prop/municipalservices.htm) has the tax rate history for the last decade for all of NH. The rates are set in the last quarter of the year.

[secondcurve]

Property taxes aren't collected just for the town but the school and state as well. For the past two years most schools and town have been trying to level fund their budgets. The problem is that some costs, such as contractual items (i.e. teachers' salaries, health insurance, FICA, NH State Retirement) can't be level-funded. So, cuts are made to operating budgets to compensate. Some of the "non-essentual" items, like fireworks, are seeing big cuts. That might sound odd, but in a tourist town like mine, it is fodder for a lot of discussion.

The other issue facing towns is unforeseen expenses that will cause a budget to go over with little or no notice. A big fire, such as the Christian Conference Center in Alton Bay burning, will take out a budget in no-time, as FEMA monies take a while to come in and are only a percent of the total money spent to serve and protect. Ditto for unforeseen energy costs and legal fees (cell towers, anyone?)

Take a look a the breakdown of your taxes and your assessments. If your assessments went down and your taxes went up, as for an explanation. It may not just be that the budget is higher - there's more going on at the state level than you might be aware of.... and by all means, get involved.

AW:

Property taxes are going up because local officials refuse to cut pensions and 100% free health care benefits in the face of rising costs and slowing revenues (taxes). It is disappointing when local officials feel it is a god given right that tax payers provide benefits to town and state workers that the tax payers themselves do not receive from their employers.

I wish I could get involved but out of state property owners have no rights in the process.

[Argie's Wife]

TUFTONBORO

YEAR | VALUATION | TWN | L.ED | S.ED | CNY | TTL
2009 | 1,045,982,823 | 1.90 | 2.66 | 2.39 | 1.00 | 7.95
2010 | 1,056,166,697 | 2.52 | 3.13 | 2.39 | 0.97 | 9.01

TWN = Town Tax
L.ED = Local Education
S.ED = State Education
CNY = County Tax
TTL = Total Taxs


Looks like your town taxes took a nice increase by $0.62 but your local education taxes took a $0.74 increase. Is there a new teacher's contract or is this part of the town's payment to Gov. Wentworth School District for the renovations to the high school? (T'boro sends their students to Wolfboro for school right?) There's a lot more going on here than just the town's rate....

[breathe easy]

There's a lot more going on here than just the town's rate....

Well, the town tax rate is up a whopping 33% vs. the school tax rate that was up 18%, still a sizeable increase, but only 1/2 the towns. Property values dropped about 1.5% , about $11,000,000 which impacts both the town and school tax rate, but certainly not for the amounts indicated.
I know in Moultonborough that if our Selectmen or School Board proposed such large increases in taxes there would be a lot of public outcry.
Taxpayers are not powerless by the way. There are hearings early in the year before the final budget is placed on the warrant and of course it is voted on at town meeting.

[tis]

Yes, Tuftonboro is part of the Gov. Wentworth Reg. district so sends it's high school students to Kingswood. The kids stay in town through sixth grade before going to Kingswood. But Wolfeboro and Tuftonboro, in fact, none of the towns in the district have yet been taxed for the new (renovations) to the school. Something was said about Tuftonboro taking money out of some fund last year to help keep taxes artifically low so that this year they were much higher. I think I read that in the GSN. (local newspaper). The sad thing about Tuftonboro is it has always been known for it 's low taxes, but unfortunately, it seems that is coming to an end.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

AW:

Property taxes are going up because local officials refuse to cut pensions and 100% free health care benefits in the face of rising costs and slowing revenues (taxes). It is disappointing when local officials feel it is a god given right that tax payers provide benefits to town and state workers that the tax payers themselves do not receive from their employers.

I wish I could get involved but out of state property owners have no rights in the process.

SC, as AW suggests get involved and in the process read what she is saying more carefully.
1) Local officials have NO control over the NH pension system that is controlled SOLELY by our wonderful legislators in Concord. Do you know that in an effort to balance the state budget the Democrats running things in Concord DECREASED the amount the state contributes to the municipal workers pension fund. In addition, they stipulated in the legislation that Towns could not, repeat could not pass on any of the towns' additional pension costs to employees! Most town officials are very upset at this arbitrary move by Concord.
2) Health benefit costs jumped 17% which many towns are NOT passing on to employees. This act of charity by town officials does no sit well with taxpayers.
3) Keep in mind that there are two sides to the increase in the tax rate. If there is a corresponding decrease in property valuations there will be little or no change in the dollar amount paid by each taxpayers. This situation is supposedly what happened in Meredith. Tuftonboro, according to various officials, did not have sufficient reserves as determined by the DRA and was forced to raise taxes.

[lawn psycho]

secondcurve, you hit the nail on the head about involvement. What happens with many small town budgets, few if any people from the public show up to the work session meetings and then armchair quarterback it after it passes at town meeting (which many people in town don't even attend). I've found that going to the work sessions is beneficial as you can certainly sway the thought process. Even as a non-resident you can go speak your thoughts. I've found most boards do take public input, regardless of residency.

The typical small town budget board members typically fit one of the three with most having no accounting experience:

1. Long term townie who wants things to never change unless it's to their own or relatives benefit and then it's OK.
2. Person(s) with a specific agenda they are fighting for, tax rate be damned.
3. The ultimate contrarian who doesn't want to spend one extra $0.01

Then you are left to hope they balance each other out. In my town, the town manager "appoints" the planning board and budget board members and they are then approved by the selectmen. If you don't fit their 'ideals', you ain't gettin' on the board.

New England town goverments are pretty much mob rule via mini "true" democracies which ironically is what the constitution painstakingly was written to prevent.

[Argie's Wife]

Alton's Budget Committee has five members and they are elected, not appointed. They do not receive a stipend for the work they do. I'd wager that three of the five members have an extensive professional background in finances, two have an excellent knowledge of the town's history, while two have a great understanding of the town's departments/functions. (Some of these qualities overlap, of course.) There's one representative from the School Board and one from the town's Board of Selectmen who also attend meetings as a member-at-large of the committee.

I've never seen anyone knocking anyone else over to run for the position. It's a crap job, really, and not too many people want it. I've seen people get elected to the Budget Committee so that they can run for Selectman or School Board later on. At voting time, it's the Budget Committee's budget that's presented to the voters to vote on - not the Selectmen's budget.

Personally, I think Budget Committee should be a pre-requsite for Selectmen - if you can't make the meetings, don't understand the budget process, and aren't familiar with how the town runs, how can you make informed decisions on the management of the town issues?

Budget Committees, just like any other public meeting, have to have meeting minutes available for review by the public within 5 business days (see RSA 91 - the Right To Know Law) and have to meet in a public place, with postings for their meetings in a public place (usually the post office and town hall). They are supposed to have public input in their agenda - if they don't then it better be a special meeting and not "the norm". There's is generally one public hearing on the town's budget and one on the school's budget prior to voting.

And yes, people do NOT get involved, as a rule. I could count on one hand the number of people I've seen in attendance for the public hearings (and that's w/ our winter population of 4K+) - I've been watching these meetings for four years now.

[tis]

AGW, you hit the nail on the head. It is a crap job and nobody wants it. You have to be either desperate and need the money it pays or you are power hungry, or have a personal vendetta, or you get talked into it. You can't please the public no matter what you do. You can really get involved in politics and feel you really want to help your town, but it is very frustrating.

[Shedwannabe]

Just curious

Is there a double entendre in your title that I don't get (something about local sovereignty...) or did you just use the wrong word in your title? I would understand wanting to rein in spending, but "reigning in" is an entirely different concept.

[breathe easy]

There are two kinds of budget committees in NH. A statutory Budget Committee that is authorized by law (RSA32:14 & RSA 32:15) and has very real budgetary power.
In Moultonborough, we wanted a statutory budget committee but the warrant article was hijacked by those in attendance and convoluted into a committee to study forming a town and school district appointed committee. No power and they do not do any actual budgeting. They are doing a credible job this year challenging the norms, but all they can really do is make suggestions.
I would like to clarify what a previous poster stated about the right to know law. There is nowhere in the right to know law where a public body is required to allow public input. It's totally optional. Meetings need only be held in public except for those issues that the law allows to be held in non-public session.
Our "advisory" budget committee does not ever allow public input at any of their meetings and our selectboard also does not allow any public input at any worksession. They also limit public input at the "regular" meetings to 15 minutes in the beginning and 15 minutes at the end.
I am one of the handful of citizens that show up for meetings and hearings and it can be very discouraging.

[lawn psycho]

Just curious

Is there a double entendre in your title that I don't get (something about local sovereignty...) or did you just use the wrong word in your title? I would understand wanting to rein in spending, but "reigning in" is an entirely different concept.

Unfortunately the edit function prohibits editing the title. I realized the mistake long after posting.

For your edification, I was educated outside of New England so my dialect contains Rs as opposed to aaaahhhs :rolleye1:

Moderator edit: I've edited the title.

[lawn psycho]

Breathe Easy,
Have you brought up the public input topic to your selectmen? I know that public input actually saves issues from flaring up at the public hearings.

I can think of tons of issues that got brought up in work sessions by the public that had they not been worked out prior to the town meeting vote they would have been blasted out of the water. If a board is unwilling to have public input, they need to be kicked too the curb.

[breathe easy]

Breathe Easy,
Have you brought up the public input topic to your selectmen? I know that public input actually saves issues from flaring up at the public hearings.

I can think of tons of issues that got brought up in work sessions by the public that had they not been worked out prior to the town meeting vote they would have been blasted out of the water. If a board is unwilling to have public input, they need to be kicked too the curb.

Brought it up a number of times. They have said that too much public input lengthens the meetings and they can't get their work done. The only people allowed to speak in worksessions beside the board and town administrator are those asked by the board. Many, many decisions are made in our town absent any public comment.

[Argie's Wife]

There are two kinds of budget committees in NH. A statutory Budget Committee that is authorized by law (RSA32:14 & RSA 32:15) and has very real budgetary power.
In Moultonborough, we wanted a statutory budget committee but the warrant article was hijacked by those in attendance and convoluted into a committee to study forming a town and school district appointed committee. No power and they do not do any actual budgeting. They are doing a credible job this year challenging the norms, but all they can really do is make suggestions.
I would like to clarify what a previous poster stated about the right to know law. There is nowhere in the right to know law where a public body is required to allow public input. It's totally optional. Meetings need only be held in public except for those issues that the law allows to be held in non-public session.
Our "advisory" budget committee does not ever allow public input at any of their meetings and our selectboard also does not allow any public input at any worksession. They also limit public input at the "regular" meetings to 15 minutes in the beginning and 15 minutes at the end.
I am one of the handful of citizens that show up for meetings and hearings and it can be very discouraging.


You didn't need to clarify because I said that board and committee were "supposed to allow" public input and never tied it with RSA 91. ALL public meetings have to be posted within 24 hours and w/in 2 days. The meeting minutes have to be available to the public. As for the public input, I don't have sufficient information on that but I'm digging - I do know that public input HAS to be allowed at a public hearing - as for at a public meeting, I believe it's allowed as a matter of transparency - but I'm checking my facts before I post on that.

91-A:2 Meetings Open to Public.

I. For the purpose of this section, a "meeting''shall mean the convening of a quorum of the membership of a public body, as provided in RSA 91-A:1-a, to discuss or act upon a matter or matters over which the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power. "Meeting''shall not include:
(a) Any chance meeting or a social meeting neither planned nor intended for the purpose of discussing matters relating to official business and at which no decisions are made; however, no such chance or social meeting shall be used to circumvent the spirit of this chapter;
(b) Strategy or negotiations with respect to collective bargaining; or
(c) Consultation with legal counsel.
II. All public proceedings shall be open to the public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meetings of those bodies or agencies. Except for town meetings, school district meetings and elections, no vote while in open session may be taken by secret ballot. Any person shall be permitted to use recording devices, including, but not limited to, tape recorders, cameras and videotape equipment, at such meetings. Minutes of all such meetings, including names of members, persons appearing before the bodies or agencies, and a brief description of the subject matter discussed and final decisions, shall be promptly recorded and open to public inspection within 144 hours of the public meeting, except as provided in RSA 91-A:6, and shall be treated as permanent records of any body or agency, or any subordinate body thereof, without exception. Except in an emergency or when there is a meeting of a legislative committee, a notice of the time and place of each such meeting, including a nonpublic session, shall be posted in 2 appropriate places or shall be printed in a newspaper of general circulation in the city or town at least 24 hours, excluding Sundays and legal holidays, prior to such meetings. An emergency shall mean a situation where immediate undelayed action is deemed to be imperative by the chairman or presiding officer of the body or agency who shall employ whatever means are available to inform the public that a meeting is to be held. The minutes of the meeting shall clearly spell out the need for the emergency meeting. When a meeting of a legislative committee is held, publication made pursuant to the rules of the house of representatives or the senate, whichever rules are appropriate, shall be sufficient notice. If the charter of any city or guidelines or rules of order of any body or agency described in RSA 91-A:1-a require a broader public access to official meetings and records than herein described, such charter provisions or guidelines or rules of order shall take precedence over the requirements of this chapter.

[breathe easy]

I do know that public input HAS to be allowed at a public hearing - as for at a public meeting, I believe it's allowed as a matter of transparency - but I'm checking my facts before I post on that.

Public hearings are by definition and law an opportunity for the public to offer input for specific issues and are required for many things such as bonds greater than $10K, SB2 ballot questions, operating budgets, warrant articles and others. A weekly selectmen meeting is not a public hearing.

For regular public meetings I can state unequivocally and without any doubt that there is NO requirement in the RTK law requiring public input. It is allowed in most towns at the complete discretion of the board or committee.

[fatlazyless]

The proposed 40% personal federal excise tax on cadillac health plans would help to curtail local town, health insurance costs, so that would be one small step to cut spending.

Hopefully, it gets enacted, plus that money goes to pay for the 30,000,000 people who would be no longer uninsured.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

The proposed 40% personal federal excise tax on cadillac health plans would help to curtail local town, health insurance costs, so that would be one small step to cut spending.

Hopefully, it gets enacted, plus that money goes to pay for the 30,000,000 people who would be no longer uninsured.

I am confused. Who do you think is going to pay the 40% tax? The teacher or the town? How will that save either party money? Punishing people does not save anything.

[Argie's Wife]

The proposed 40% personal federal excise tax on cadillac health plans would help to curtail local town, health insurance costs, so that would be one small step to cut spending.

Hopefully, it gets enacted, plus that money goes to pay for the 30,000,000 people who would be no longer uninsured.



MOMMMMMMMMMM! He's doin' it again! :D

[trfour]

The proposed 40% personal federal excise tax on cadillac health plans would help to curtail local town, health insurance costs, so that would be one small step to cut spending.

Hopefully, it gets enacted, plus that money goes to pay for the 30,000,000 people who would be no longer uninsured.

I don't know about FLL, however I never owned a cadillac health plan, or a Cadillac for that matter... :)
Now, flippen houses is coming back and the Bahamas are looking better every day!...
I'll sell you my snowmobile for a $Million... Wave the interested... :) :look:

[Eagle]

I agree. Local real estate taxes are exploding and nothing is being done to force the tough choices on local governments that are being forced on the private sector. Case in point. Tuftonboro NH. My property taxes surged 13% this year. What do we get from local government in the way of services? Basically nothing. My local association pays to pave and maintain its roads, including plowing. We pay a private company to supply our water and there is no town sewerage and there is no trash pick-up. Yes, the town supplies police and fire protection and education but that is the extent of the "services". I read in the paper last week that the town manager couldn't bring himself to support having town employees pay even a $1.00 a year of their own health insurance. This is beyond frustrating!

I'm in the same boat as you. Private road, etc.
From 1998 to 2009 my property taxes in Tuftonboro have gone up 318% from $1450 to $4550.
Time to put a stop to this madness.

[phoenix]

cadillac plans tend to pay every last dollar of health cost so the user has no incentive to curb usage. I think the goal of taxing these plans is to get both sides to agree to health plans that most people have ; that is they require some level of deductibles or co- insurance .This may make individuals have as they say" a little skin in the game".

[lawn psycho]

cadillac plans tend to pay every last dollar of health cost so the user has no incentive to curb usage. I think the goal of taxing these plans is to get both sides to agree to health plans that most people have ; that is they require some level of deductibles or co- insurance .This may make individuals have as they say" a little skin in the game".

Actually, many people covered by their employers have what the government will consider a "cadillac" plan. The problem could be that it will cost more money (or reduced coverage) for many people to pay for those without insurance. It's not a small number of people who are covered by their employer.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-11-25-insurance-reform_N.htm

[Eagle]

Want to talk about Cadillac plans? Department cost detail for Tuftonboro:
Administrative Salaries $66,485 Health Benefits $38,056
Tax Collector Salaries $19,823 Health Benefits $14,095
Building Inspector $43,062 Health Benefits $19,028
Police Salaries $206,289 Health Benefits $76,112

Now that is what I call Cadillac plans. but, what the heck, the taxpayers have deep pockets. Right?

[lawn psycho]

Want to talk about Cadillac plans? Department cost detail for Tuftonboro:
Administrative Salaries $66,485 Health Benefits $38,056
Tax Collector Salaries $19,823 Health Benefits $14,095
Building Inspector $43,062 Health Benefits $19,028
Police Salaries $206,289 Health Benefits $76,112

Now that is what I call Cadillac plans. but, what the heck, the taxpayers have deep pockets. Right?

Let's take the tax collector as an example. Now if they are paying none of the plan, then yes it is a rip-off compared to the private sector.

However, if you compare to many employer plans, you'd be shocked at what the plans cost. My company's plan costs more than the $14k for a family plan, however employess are paying about $3500 plus co-pays.

My point is nothing more than be careful about what you think a "cadillac" plan is. You may very well have one yourself and not even know it.

[Eagle]

The town pays 100%, the employees pay nothing.:(

[Heaven]

That's fine to consider adding a larger deductible or co-insurance to town employee plans, but to be equitable then the wages/salaries need to be re-evaluated as the "total compensation" for the job needs to mirror private sector. One of the "compensations" to a town employee for accepting 60% "going rate" salary of an equivalent private sector job are the other benefits, including health care and retirement. It is unfair to rape the compensation package of the wheat and leave the chaff. I'm sorry, I mean "reap".

[secondcurve]

That's fine to consider adding a larger deductible or co-insurance to town employee plans, but to be equitable then the wages/salaries need to be re-evaluated as the "total compensation" for the job needs to mirror private sector. One of the "compensations" to a town employee for accepting 60% "going rate" salary of an equivalent private sector job are the other benefits, including health care and retirement. It is unfair to rape the compensation package of the wheat and leave the chaff. I'm sorry, I mean "reap".

Heaven:

I appreciate your point, but when unemployment is in excess of 10% the "going rate" also is lower than it used to be. This is a basic economic fact. For example, when my pension was terminated this year and my health insurance premiums went up $100.00 a month I wasn't given any salary adjustment. Rather, I considered myself lucky to retain my job. Times are tough and folks who share your thinking are contributing to the bankruptcy of this country. We all need to make due with less regardless of whether we work in the public or private sectors. No one is exempt.

[tis]

In the last couple of days I have been reviewing new quotes for my company's health insurance renewal and I am appalled! For around $500 a month you now have to have a $2500-$3000 deductible. I remember when a deductible like that would have been unheard of. I know we are limited to only a few companies here in the Lakes Region, but it is just a sad state of affairs. And I don't have any great hopes that the government would do any better. In fact I am sure they won't.

[lawn psycho]

That's fine to consider adding a larger deductible or co-insurance to town employee plans, but to be equitable then the wages/salaries need to be re-evaluated as the "total compensation" for the job needs to mirror private sector. One of the "compensations" to a town employee for accepting 60% "going rate" salary of an equivalent private sector job are the other benefits, including health care and retirement. It is unfair to rape the compensation package of the wheat and leave the chaff. I'm sorry, I mean "reap".

The problem is the public sector "total package" is often better than the private sector. Why do you think so many never leave their jobs? Much less chance of getting whacked during cutbacks and many positions are unionized so seniority trumps any chance of cutting dead weight.
And when the public employees do get the axe they whine and picket as if their jobs are a native borne right.