Priorities

The Special Town Meeting scheduled for February 24th is one that highlights some interesting sets of priorities on behalf of our appointed and elected leaders.

Article 47 – TOWN HALL & CENTER OFFICE BUILDING RENOVATION, asks the voters to approve ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY THOUSAND DOLLARS (1,580,000.00), for additional costs of remodeling, reconstructing and making extraordinary repairs to the Town Hall and Center School Building. This of course, is on top of the already authorized – but not yet spent – 4.3 million dollars approved by voters in 2007.

At a time when consumer spending has witnessed it’s lowest increase in 47 years, unemployment is at 7.6% (predicted to reach 9-10%), home mortgage foreclosures are up 225% since 2006, and over 200,000 retail stores are expected to close their doors in 2009, the town leadership is asking you and I to increase our tax burden for RENOVATIONS. This is a rather odd priority at a time when one could easily argue we have greater needs within the community.

Another item of questionable importance is Article 66 - DAM REMOVAL COST ESTIMATE, which asks voters to transfer THIRTEEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY SEVENAND 00/100 DOLLARS ($13,427.00) to the DPW Purchase of Services Account #14102-52000 for the purpose of paying the costs associated with developing a cost estimate for repairs and maintenance to the dams on the Leadmine Mountain Open Space parcel.

One is hard pressed to recognize the importance and immediacy of this project in light of the research provided by the state Department of Fisheries and Wildlife (DFW), which clearly identified the merits – both ecologically and economically – in restoring Hamant Brook to its natural free-flowing origins.

DFW, owner of the Conservation Restriction on the property (having paid 1.9 million dollars for such thereby enabling the Town of Sturbridge to purchase the property) has provided information identifying the value of removing the dams – at no cost to the town – and allowing the area to be repatriated to its natural state.

Yet, based upon what appears to be emotional attachments (by a relatively small group of individuals) to these two particular man made ponds – of which there are hundreds in the area –, the leadership of this community has decided to unnecessarily spend tax money which could be better utilized elsewhere.

These two requests highlight a somewhat unsettling lack of leadership in terms of identifying priorities involving tax revenue. The Town Hall/Center School project will involve the expenditure of $5.5 plus million dollars in taxpayer funds, for a project of limited benefit in terms of its return on investment for the overwhelming majority of Sturbridge residents. The $13,000 dollar request for the Hamant Brook study (though significantly much smaller in scale) is an unjustifiable request for funds that could be better utilized elsewhere.

Recently, this community underwent a budget process wherein services were reduced, jobs cuts were threatened, stipends were eliminated or scaled back, and fees for some services were increased. Additionally, nearly all municipal departments were the subject of a spending freeze or slowdown in an effort to save money. Each of these steps were clearly necessary and appropriate in light of the economic crisis this nation faces.

Yet, rather than scale back or eliminate unnecessary spending of true significance, our leadership has instead determined to move ahead with requests for voting funding of questionable programs. To be sure, there are issues with the Town Hall that must be addressed immediately. Handicap access in one, while correcting some of the structural issues surrounding safety is another. There is no readably available evidence to suggest that these expenditures collectively, would exceed anything beyond $1 million dollars.

However, for the sake of discussion, let us inflate that figure to $1.5 or even $2 million dollars. Under such a scenario we would be left with anywhere between $1 million and $5 million dollars that could be utilized in support of a plethora of other more necessary programs. The first that comes to mind to this writer is the Burgess School.

The unnecessary funds being requested for the Town Hall could instead be used towards the town’s approximate $20 million dollar share of the Burgess School. Currently, the state is maintaining its continued support and willingness to provide a minimum of 51% of the $40 million dollars needed for a new school. Should the state remain committed to such, it will be an excellent opportunity for us to provide our children and our educators with a more appropriate environment for their education. This is, by every measure available and utilized, a sound INVESTMENT in our future social and economic prosperity. The Town Hall project provides no such return on investment.

The $13,000 requested for the Hamant Brook study could be used there as well, or could be channeled back into programs and or services that were cut or reduced during the most recent budget process. As well, when one considers the $200,000 shortfall identified by the Town Administrator in our landfill cap fund, one could argue that the $13,000 could be better utilized in reducing that deficit, than on a study which provides no real value to the town when juxtaposed against the research already done by DFW.

Thus, we as voters find ourselves faced with some decisions that will identify just how we prioritize our needs vs. our desires as it relates to the future of this community. Do we need a new town hall? I would argue no, but we do need to address some of its access and structural concerns. Do we need a new school? I would argue yes, as that is truly an investment in our future. Better schools and better learning environments - when coupled with committed parenting, of which there is an abundance of here in Sturbridge - help to cultivate better students, who then become more socially conscious adults. This creates better future leaders for our community and our country.

Equally important from an economic standpoint, is that better schools tend to attract highly desirable businesses as they look to locate/relocate in areas that provide attractive social incentives for potential employees. Thus, in this writer’s view the town hall project is one that beyond access and structural issues should be shelved until the economy improves. This would allow us to more effectively utilize and dedicate our limited taxpayer funds towards the Burgess School, in effect towards our children.

As for the $13,000 for Hamant Brook, I would argue that we would be better served by addressing the immediate needs this community has in terms of programs or services and rededicating that money for such. We’ve got hundreds of ponds in the immediate area which provide a wealth of fishing opportunities. By contrast, some of our most vulnerable citizens - be they children or seniors - are witnessing service cuts or reductions that are not quite so plentiful.

The town hall renovation and Hamant Brook warrant articles were voted 4-1 & 5-0 respectively in placing and supporting those two articles. This writer would suggest that a more pragmatic and reasoned approach would have resulted in 5-0 determinations against supporting both of those articles.

Our parents and grandparents made incredible sacrifices to ensure the properity of their children's future. We need to be cautious not to sacrifice our children's future, for the sake of protecting our present.