Senior Services - Point 3 of My 7-Point Plan for the First 12 Months

3) Senior Services

There is little doubt that many of our seniors are faced with mounting challenges that present significant difficulties in terms of their quality of life. Escalating costs coupled with dwindling fixed incomes have placed some of our seniors in a most vulnerable and precarious predicament. The impact of tax increases and service reductions has a much more immediate affect upon them.

Elderbus: Consider the plight of seniors who have depended upon Elderbus services to shuttle them back and forth between medical visits. Recent cuts in service over the last year have forced reductions in the number of hours and trips that Elderbus operates. In turn, this has resulted in extended day trips for seniors in order to attend a 30 minute doctor’s visit. What was once accomplished in a matter of hours has now become a full day-long trip for many who travel out of town for doctor visits.

This creates the necessity for seniors to plan a day’s worth of snacks, lunches, and medications if they need to address medical issues. For some, the logistics of such can be overwhelming and may result in failure to attend planned appointments or to simply stop making them altogether. This is unfortunate, and more importantly, it is unnecessary.

In fiscal year 2008, there were 3,818 trips utilized by Sturbridge seniors via the Elderbus. These trips consisted of medical, shopping, and work related endeavors. Some seniors, in an attempt to hedge increased costs coupled with reduced incomes, have had to return to work, often without an automobile or the ability to utilize such.

During the first 6 months of Fiscal 2008, Sturbridge seniors utilized Elderbus services for 1,879 trips. Service reductions during the same 6-month period in Fiscal 2009 has reduced that number to 1,050 trips - a reduction of 829 trips or 44%. This reduction has had a devastating affect on many Sturbridge seniors who depend upon Elderbus services.

There are 21 communities in the Elderbus service area and each of those communities shares a portion of the services associated with Elderbus. An additional $26,000 (total) would provide the revenue needed to offset the costs of a second van. This cost, if spread among the 21 communities (perhaps based upon ridership/usage), would result in minimal to zero impact upon most municipal budgets. The issue here is one of engagement.

As your selectman I will personally reach out to the selectmen and/or appropriate authorities in the 21 Elderbus service communities in an effort to engage them in dialogue on a comprehensive and unified approach to addressing this shortfall. I will initiate this outreach within the first 2 months of the election, with the hopes of providing a proposal to the town within 6 months of the election.

UPDATE: I've recently initiated an outreach effort with Elderbus Services and a number of Council on Aging Directors in an effort to formulate a plan for addressing this issue with the 21 member communities.

Senior Municipal Service Program: Each year the town sets aside $10,000 for the Senior Municipal Service Program, which enables seniors within a certain earnings level to provide volunteer services to the town, which, based upon the hours worked, are converted into credits or reductions on their tax bill. The Town Administrator’s web page indicates that up to $500 can be earned as a credit by those utilizing the program. Other figures indicate the number to be more in the range of $750.

This is an outstanding program that affords qualifying seniors with an opportunity to provide much needed assistance to the community at bargain rates, which are then conveyed to the seniors as credits on their tax bill. Sadly, this program has been underutilized for a variety of reasons, all of which can be easily addressed with willingness and minimal effort. Consider the following statistics provided relative to the use of this program as provided by the Town of Sturbridge:

In fiscal 2007, there were 2 total participants resulting in $628.75 in tax credits being issued. (Unused funds of $9,371.25 would have been returned to the general fund.)

In fiscal 2008, there were again 2 total participants resulting in $1,000 in tax credits being issued. (Unused funds of $9,000 would have been returned to the general fund.)

As of the date of this publication, there are currently 4 residents participating in the program, which will result in an approximate total of $2,000 in tax credits being issued, if no other seniors participate.

It is unfortunate that the number of seniors taking advantage of this program is so low. Each year, the town is left with a balance in this account, which is then utilized elsewhere. An effective program of this nature would - and should - result in zero funds available at the end of the fiscal year. This would indicate an effective and convincing outreach campaign relative to the merits of the program.

Recently, I shared some thoughts with the Town Administrator relative to the reasons some qualifying seniors are, and have been, reluctant to take advantage of this program. It is my hope that he will carefully consider the merits of that information and take the appropriate steps.

Within the first month of my tenure I will work closely with the Town Administrator and the Board to develop a more sensitive approach to the implementation of this program. Additionally, working with the Council on Aging Director we will work to facilitate a pragmatic outreach program mirroring one utilized by a local foundation.

STAR Co-Op: This past year, I drafted and worked with Selectman Scott Garieri to present the Senior Tax Assessment Reduction Cooperative or STAR Co-op. The program is designed to provide access to the Senior Municipal Service Program (SMSP) to those seniors who due to illness, injury, or disability are unable to participate. Under the SMSP, seniors are eligible to participate provided they are able to physically provide services. This prevents those who are physically unable from accessing the program.

I recognized the disparity in these requirements in that those seniors who are most often in need of tax relief may be those who are physically unable to participate. The STAR Co-op allows volunteers like you and I to provide volunteer services to the town and to then have our "earnings" co-opted (credited) to a qualifying senior's tax bill.

This program establishes a true neighborhood/community approach to addressing the needs of Sturbridge seniors who have been the foundation upon which this community was built. It also provides a local solution to a local issue, facilitated by local residents, while simultaneously providing an opportunity for all of us to establish stronger connections with our senior community. The added bonus to the town is the benefit it derives through the acquisition of much needed services at budget rates.

This program has been forwarded to State Senator Brewer, who as reported by the Town Administrator is in the process of sponsoring this in the Senate. Scott and I will continue to follow this and work towards passage and implementation within the community.

Burgess Elementary School - Point #2 of My 7-Point Plan for the First 12 Months

2) Burgess Elementary School

It is no secret that we have one of the finest educational systems in the area. One lays witness daily to the remarkably talented youth that grace our community. This is certainly no accident and stems from the selfless sacrifices of parents and educators. Our children represent our future and the foundation that we lay for them is in effect the foundation that we lay for the future prosperity of our community.

Unfortunately, our children and teachers at the Burgess School find themselves in less than ideal conditions that will only continue to deteriorate. We must endeavor to identify and prioritize resources with which to facilitate the construction of a facility that is more conducive to our children’s needs.

Current estimates on the Burgess School are approximately $42 million, with the state thus far proposing to cover a minimum of 51% of those costs. In balancing the return on investment and the necessity of such an endeavor, we would do well to recognize the difference between spending and investing.

As I’ve previously stated, the future prosperity of a community (financial, social, and historical) is directly linked to the investment it makes in its youth and its educational system. Investing in a new elementary school for our children, will reap significant rewards in terms of the desirability for businesses and residents to locate/relocate in the area.

World class businesses recognize the value of locating in desirable communities, which invest in their youth and seniors. Potential employees and residents associated with those businesses fully understand and prioritize the educational and social needs of their children and senior family members.

As your selectman, I am committed to promoting the renovation/reconstruction of a new elementary school at every appropriate opportunity, be it locally or if necessary at the state level.

Simultaneously, working with the Board and members of the School Committee, I will encourage and pursue as much public discussion as necessary in order to ensure that residents are provided with the very best information possible with which to make an informed decision.

Clearly, we face significant hurdles in terms of financing such a project. The tax burdens of a new Wastewater Treatment Facility, the Town Hall/Center School project, as well as securing the funds needed for capping cell number 2 at the landfill as well as estimated fund shortages in the road improvement program will challenge our ability to fund a new school.

We would do well however to recognize the opportunity before us in terms of the state share of this project. If we are unwilling to proceed with the construction of a new school and take advantage of the state funding this year, the probability of securing such in the future will be most certainly be lost as other communities who are ready to proceed will be prioritized ahead of us. This would be a tragic loss for our children and our community.

It is critical that we maintain a strong commitment to this project and thus identify and prioritize the use of local taxpayer money in a manner that ensures available tax revenues with which to proceed. This will require careful scrutiny of all funding requests and in fact some difficult and perhaps unpopular decisions by our elected officials, in order to ensure that we do not jeopardize our ability to fund a new school.

Though I have no children or grandchildren who will benefit from the construction of a new school, I do live here and fully recognize the incredible return on investment that a new school will bring in terms of providing a more suitable environment for the mentoring of young minds. The social and financial benefits of such are enormous and of positive consequence to every single resident.

Town Hall - Center School Passes

Tonight, Sturbridge voters overwhelming approved Article 47, a request for additional funds for the Town Hall & Center Office Building Renovation project, thus clearing the way for the process to begin.

Town Administrator James Malloy, along with the project architect, provided a slide presentation summarizing some of the work to be done as well as their rationale for supporting and recommending the project.

This was followed by passionate and well articulated pleas from Bob Brier and CPC Chair Penny Dumas in support of the project. Both provided strong emotional and historical reasoning for supporting the project and certainly many of their points were valid.

Several residents - including myself - expressed concerns about the expenditure in light of the current economy, but in the end, the 2/3rds threshold was met as voters determined the project to be worthy of the additional funds.

The voters have spoken and the debate has come to a close. It is now incumbent upon each of us to respect the decision and to join in support, and indeed celebration of this project. It is, and will continue to to be our Town Hall, so let's support it and make it the very best that it can be.

Congratulations to those whose arguments ultimately carried the day.

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.

Comprehensive Budget Analysis

Back on February 10th, I released my 7 point plan for the first 12 months of my tenure, should I be granted the honor of serving as your selectman. As I indicated in my release statement, "I have a fundamental obligation to provide you with as much detail as possible regarding my positions and my visions."

As well, I indicated at that time that "I am committed to ensuring that there is no doubt as to what you can expect from me - should I be granted the honor of serving you." I followed by saying that "My positions on issues will be clearly articulated in print and available via this medium at all times. This will ensure that residents understand my approach to issues, my deliberative process, and the basis for the information used when coming to a decision. As well, it will provide each of you with a means of holding me accountable."

My entire "7 Point Plan for the First 12 Months" is available for download or review in the sidebar to the right. Over the next few weeks, I will post individual sections that plan, so that residents can review and carefully weigh each aspect of it. Where warranted - due to emerging issues or information - I will expand or update with relevant information. Today, I am re-posting point 1 of the plan.

1) Comprehensive Budget Analysis

We are well aware of the current economic crisis facing this nation, and in fact the world. Nationally our unemployment rate is at 7.6%, with many predicting 9-10% unemployment by year’s end. Home foreclosures have increased 81% since the same period last year and 225% since 2006. Further complicating the national crisis is a significant retrenchment in consumer spending which in the last 6 months has demonstrated the lowest rise in 47 years. Last year alone (2008) over 160,000 U.S. retail stores closed their doors. It is predicted that we could witness 200,000 retail store closings in 2009. At a time when consumer spending is receding in such magnitude due to the economic crisis, it is unconscionable that leadership at any level would propose or support spending initiatives that are unnecessary and or unwarranted.

At the very first regularly scheduled meeting (if not provided sooner in response to my ongoing inquiries) I will publicly request a comprehensive list of non-essential budget items planned or currently being implemented along with the taxpayer costs associated with those expenditures. I will request that a spreadsheet be developed (and made publicly available on the town website) that details the tax levy upon residents for each of the items considered or approved. This will enable residents to clearly see the associated monthly cost per resident for each item proposed or approved. As well, I will ask that these items be categorized in terms of how and why they were prioritized on the list.

Subsequently, each budget request that comes before the Board of Selectmen during the course of the year should be added to this list and made publicly available on the town website, along with the item’s projected tax levy. This will enable residents to make more informed judgments about the use of taxpayer dollars.

All too often individual requests are acted upon as completely separate entities with little connectivity to their impact on the overall taxpayer debt. This frequently results in requests being approved because of what appears to be an insignificant tax increase associated with a particular item. Sadly, as each of these requests add up, the burden on Sturbridge taxpayers increases, resulting in diminished discretionary income for some and a loss of obligated income for others. This serves only to the detriment of residents.

This spreadsheet will include, yet not be limited to, the following items and their subsequent tax impact upon residents:

1. WWTF
2. Town Hall/Center School Renovations
2a. Alternate site locations for the Town Hall
3. Burgess Elementary School Renovation/Reconstruction Project
4. Sturbridge Landfill/Recycling Center
5. Non-dedicated funds (i.e. Community Preservation Act) associated with the purchase of land and/or capital expenditures.
6. Legal Fees and associated costs in relation to our contractual agreements with Kopelman and Paige as well as alternative agreements with other acceptable prominent law firms.
- 6a. In line with this request, I will seek a public accounting and detailed explanation as to the process and rationale for maintaining our relationship with Kopelman and Paige as opposed to “market shopping”
7. Hamant Brook Dam Renovations/Maintenance vs. the Stream Restoration Project proposed by the State Division of Fisheries and Wildlife.
8. A detailed report and tax levy estimate on the underground power line proposal that the Town Administrator has indicated he will bring before the town for the 2010 Annual Town Meeting.
9. A review of the current tax assessments levied upon residents

Understanding the level of detail that these requests entail, I will commit to working with the Board to ensure that the foundation for this proposal be initiated within the first 4 months of my term and completely operational prior to the fiscal 2010 Annual Town Meeting.

Southbridge Hires New Recycling Coordinator

The Town of Southbridge announced today that it had named 22 year old Melissa Joyce as its Recycling Coordinator. The Southbridge Evening News reported that Ms. Joyce is a graduate of Mount Holyoke Collage with a history major and a minor in environmental science.

Ms. Joyce is quoted as saying that she was drawn to to the position because "...it's so dynamic". She went on to say that "There's a lot we can do with it in terms of outreach and education. These days, there's no excuse not to be thinking in a sustainable fashion across the board...".

Of additional significance is her expectation of conducting a great deal of research as to "...where the town is ecologically" as written in the SEN. The News also reports that she expects to try and determine "...what the rules are, what parts of town recycle most and why some don't, who the players in the local recycling game are, etc - and how to craft a message that will reach people who aren't currently recycling much".

One can only wish this young woman a great deal of success in her new undertaking and adminre her eagerness to study the landscape in terms of recycling in Southbridge. She is eager to get the process underway and that should bode well for recycling efforts in Southbridge.

Perhaps, with this "power of example" we can undertake our own study here in Sturbridge. Certainly, such has been requested for the past several years by the FinCom as well as repeatedly by this writer over the last 3 months - all with little impact (or so it appears) on our decision makers.

A Tale of Competing Philosophies

A Special Town meeting has been scheduled in Sturbridge for Tuesday, February 24. This meeting is a tale of mixed philosophies. One, asks us to approve additional funds while increasing our tax burden for a project of questionable value, that has yet to break ground. This project, involving two aged and structurally deficient buildings is being rushed to a vote based upon what appears to be a timetable for contractors as opposed to residents. The other, an updated Master Plan, which incurs no financial burden upon residents, provides the tools for addressing challenges and opportunities that will manifest in the future.

In terms of the Town Hall project, there is little doubt - based upon projects of similar magnitude nationally - that there will be necessity for additional funds to address yet unknown structural issues. Most prominent and experienced contractors will readily admit that with projects of this nature, there is always more than meets the eye, even in the best of circumstances. Thus, with relative certainty, we can expect additional request(s) for tax dollars. At that point, there will be no choice but to comply in order to finish the project.

In light of the economic uncertainty facing many within this community, it is ill-advised to continue down a path based upon emotional attachment to a structure. To be sure, there is merit – at some point in the future- to renovating Town Hall, but for taxpayers to incur additional financial liabilities at this time for projects of questionable return on investment is a dangerous course of action.

Some have suggested that the tax increase will amount to a mere $80.00 per year. That figure is suspect at best, particularly since we have yet to expose the true challenges within these structures. Additionally, it is unwise to view this tax increase void of its aggregate impact when combined with other projects.

Bear in mind, that the much needed WWTF expansion will cost users an additional $300 plus dollars per year. Other projects will add a bit here and a bit there. Suddenly, the estimated $80.00 annual increase will become significant when viewed in its entirety with other projects. It is unwise in this climate to move forward without careful scrutiny. One has to question this rush to judgment via Special Town Meeting.

Additionally, the certain loss of additional tax revenue from business closings and housing losses will surely result in increased tax burdens for all. There is no denying that fact. All reputable economists predict ever escalating unemployment (9-10%) and further erosions to the housing market, which has already witnessed a 225% increase in mortgage forclosures since 2006. In 2008, over 160,000 retail stores closed and analysts predict that an additional 200,000 retailers will close in 2009. Sturbridge cannot escape the fallout of such dismal numbers.

As for the Master Plan, this is the right time to proceed with such as it provides a significant return on investment for every Sturbridge resident. No tool better enables a community to plan its future growth while providing a blueprint with which to exploit economic opportunities. Additionally, an updated Master Plan is a critical component of some funding requests that a community may seek from the state. Without such, our community remains a low priority for some funding streams.

The Master Plan - at a cost of $75k - will have no impact upon our tax burden, but will provide substantial return on our investment as we move towards the future. It is of much greater significance and value than the millions we will spend on renovations to Town Hall.

"...a different story altogether"

Yesterday's Telegram and Gazette reported some “encouraging” news in that “The low bid for the Town Hall/Center Office Building renovation project came in at $800,000 more than the original appropriation two years ago and $800,000 less than was recently feared.”

It is certainly hard to argue – at least on the surface - that the picture previously painted by the Architect in terms of a $5.9 million expenditure for the project is not as bleak as previously “feared”. Some view this news as cause for celebration and evidence that we are on the right track in proceeding forward with the proposed renovations. Clearly, there is merit in such a position when viewed in the micro-vision of a single expenditure, void of a more global examination.

Four members of the Board of Selectmen, based upon the Town Administrator’s recommendation, voted to proceed with the proposed renovations void any alternatives for consideration by Sturbridge voters. In so doing, residents have been provided with an all or nothing approach in addressing this issue. Moreover, one could argue that our leadership has demonstrated a lack of understanding as to what is happening nationally and locally.

Last week alone, over 600,000 jobs were lost in the U.S. and in the month of December U.S. companies slashed more jobs than at any time since 1974. Our current unemployment rate of 7.6% is predicted to reach 9-10% within the next year by many economists. Home foreclosures rates (which have already increased 225% since 2006) will continue to rise in response to escalating unemployment and this will prove even more detrimental to the overall economy.

The good news however, is that the Town Administrator estimates “the impact on the average single-family home is expected to be about $78.70 a year…based upon the current numbers”. Clearly, this “impact” appears to be of little consequence when viewed in the context of a mere $80.00 per year increase. Yet, viewing this, or any municipal expenditure with such a narrow field of vision is an approach grounded in economic folly.

Massachusetts is currently considering a .29 per gallon gasoline tax. The average driver – based upon two tank fills per week - will see an approximate increase of $8.00 - $10.00 per week, or roughly $38.00 per month. These estimates by the way are very conservative numbers. Factored into a potential gas tax increase is escalating food prices (5.9% over last year), increased health insurance costs (2.9% increase last year), reduced or eliminated Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA) for many on fixed incomes, as well as increases in clothing, utilities, etc.

Moreover, one mustn’t lose sight of local tax increases that have yet to manifest. Based upon the Town Administrator’s projections, many in the community will soon face an annual tax increase of over $300.00 for the construction of a new and much needed Wastewater Treatment Facility. This is a financial burden yet to be shouldered by those residents on town sewer. Absent as well in the Town Administrator’s announcement is the cost of rental space for town offices during the renovation process.

We now face – based upon the Town Administrator’s projections - an estimated $200,000 shortfall in our landfill cap account and those funds must be secured by year’s end in order to properly cap cell # 2. Though perhaps not a direct tax increase, those funds will be taken from other accounts that will result in decreased overall cash, which might have been used for needed services.

Recently, during a joint budget meeting including the B.O.S. and the FinCom, we were witness to sharp reductions in services by most, if not all municipal departments. Police, Fire, and DPW stripped significant funds from their budgets, while the Recreation Department was forced to further increase fees in order to provide summer programs.

Yet, while all municipal departments are tightening their belts and reducing or eliminating both essential and non-essential services, the leadership of this community is asking you and I to loosen our belts and open our wallets for a project that is fraught with danger.

Despite any estimates presently being considered, one must bear in mind that we have yet to swing a hammer or open a wall. Once construction begins, we will inevitably be faced with escalating costs for the unforeseen or unknown issues associated with both of these buildings. And rest assured, our leadership will be coming back to residents for additional funds.

Once we arrive at that point (and surely we will), the argument then presented will be that we have traveled to a point of no return, and to turn away at that point would surely be an unwise choice. Thus, taxpayers will feel obligated to complete the project or be stuck with an unfinished pink elephant. Clearly, logic will then dictate approval of additional tax increases. One has to wonder if in fact some might be “banking” on such an approach.

I would invite our leaders to take some time to research the number of foreclosures, auctioned, for sale, and distressed (behind on payments) homes currently in Sturbridge. Perhaps they might speak with people who have lost their life savings or are in jeopardy of losing, or have already lost their jobs.

I encourage them to have a conversation with those who have seen wage reductions coupled with benefit losses and dramatic increases in necessary expenses. Is our leadership willing to have a conversation with those who have lost their incomes and are now behind on mortgage or rent payments?

Perhaps they’ll take the time to sit with those who have already seen their homes foreclosed, auctioned, or short sold. Maybe they’ll pull up a chair next to a senior who must now choose between food, heat, or medicine while struggling silently in despair. I invite the leadership of this community to take the time to speak with these folks and learn what’s truly happening in the day to day lives of those who jobs or incomes aren’t quite so secure.

Please, speak with these folks who are truly shoulderinig the crisis of this economy. These residents are all around us and with each day as the economy further deteriorates so too does their hope. I would argue that if our leadership is unaware of the pain these residents are facing, then perhaps, just perhaps, they may not know this community that well after all.

When the original funding for this project was approved in April of 2007 – which I supported - the unemployment rate was 4.5%; today it stands at 7.6% with predictions of 9-10% by years end. Our Town Administrator is clearly on target when he says that “…six months down the road it might be a different story altogether”.

The fact is, by every measure used to track the economy, it will be much, much worse. Unemployment will have increased, so too will have mortgage foreclosures, along with deepening erosions in employment benefits to those already struggling to make ends meet. Yup, "six months down the road" it will in fact "be a different story altogether".

Presently Unconvinced

It is disappointing to say the least that despite the worst economic crisis faced by this country since the great depression, our Board of Selectmen (on the recommendation of the Town Administrator), voted (4-1) to “place and support” an article requesting an additional $1.5 million for the Town Hall/Center School project. The article as voted - is in part - as follows:

“To see if the Town will vote to appropriate the sum of ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTY THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($1,580,000.00) or some other amount, to pay additional costs of remodeling, reconstructing and making extraordinary repairs to the Town Hall and the Center School Building…”. The remainder of this post can bge read by accessing the READ MORE link below.

With the nearly $4.3 million previously approved, but not yet spent, this now brings the project cost to nearly $5.9 million dollars before a single wall has been opened exposing other sure to be found costs. One can rest assured, that once these buildings undergo the process of renovations, the age and complexity of issues associated with these sites will result in additional costs. To suggest otherwise is contradictory to the reality of projects similar in magnitude across the nation.

At a time when unemployment is at 7.6% and predicted to reach 9-10% by years end, coupled with an 81% increase in mortgage foreclosures in the last 12 months (225% since 2006), the leadership of this community is asking residents to increase their tax burden for a project that may not be completely necessary at this time. Oddly, during the same period that consumer spending is witnessing its lowest increase in over 40 years, as consumers tighten belts in an effort to reduce unnecessary expenditures, the town leadership seems to be going in an opposite direction.

To be sure, there are needs at the Town Hall – appropriate handicap access, structural concerns – that require attention in the short-term were we to remain in the structure. Alternately, lease or lease options in other locations may provide a viable and financially feasible alternative until the economic storm or tsunami (as some economists reference it) passes. Without serious discussion on possible alternatives, we are left only to speculate.

I am deeply concerned that the course our leadership has embarked upon with respect to this project is based more upon emotion and desires, than it is upon actual needs or financial pragmatism.

Back in December, I challenged the Board to revisit the Town Hall/Center School project and carefully weigh the logic of forging ahead with a nearly $6 million dollar proposal in the current economic climate. With families loosing their jobs, health care coverage, life savings, and homes, it was incomprehensible to me, that we would not revisit this issue. Sadly, this suggestion was received rather coolly by our town leadership who instead chose to argue the virtues of moving ahead with the original plan.

I continued to pursue this issue via email correspondence and was advised by the Board chairman that when he and Jim found a better alternative they would present it. After mounting pressure from residents and letters to the editor, we were suddenly informed that an alternate site was now being considered. This was certainly welcomed news, as it appeared to demonstrate a willingness to explore other options.

As time passed, there seemed however to be rather tepid efforts at providing detail and or engaging in serious discussion on the particular proposal offered. In fact, there was little if any real dialogue.

Subsequently, this past Monday, we learned from the Town Administrator that the numbers for the alternative site just didn’t seem to add up and as such it was determined to continue with the previously planned project. The discussion on the merits or lack thereof regarding the alternative was non-existent and no article was placed to at least provide voters an option.

Unsatisfied with the level of discussion that quite simply never took place; I have submitted two Freedom of Information Requests for the following:

- The records, information, and estimates utilized in support of the position provided to the Board of Selectmen as it relates to the possible use of 208 Charlton Road A.K.A. All-Star Premium Products, as an alternative to the current Town Hall project.

- The information provided by the agency tasked with conducting the estimate as it appears on their official stationary or letterhead.

- The exact nature of the request to said agencies as it was conveyed via town stationary or whatever electronic means, etc., may have utilized.

- A document detailing the funds currently maintained in the Community Preservation Account, as well as expenditures or commitments thus far obligated or proposed.

- A breakdown of the CPA funds proposed for the Town Hall Center School Project and the percentages from each category of CPA allocations being considered for said project.

To be clear, I have no preference as to the final citing of the town hall, but am deeply concerned about what appears to be a course of action, which seems to be forging ahead without any real public discussion or consideration of other sites.

Recently, I learned that another site had been officially offered as a possible alternative – the former Basketville properties (413, 419, & 423 Main St.) – and yet there was no public discussion on this site during Monday’s meetings, nor to my knowledge has it been discussed period. Whether this site or that at 208 Charlton Road are the appropriate answers is of little consequence; the fact is that there appears to be an unwillingness to discuss alternatives. One could argue that this is nothing short of irresponsible when one considers the economic challenges facing this community over the next few years.

The national economy is predicted to further deteriorate by every reputable economist and by every reputable measurement. Unemployment among Sturbridge residents will rise regardless of the fields they represent; so too will mortgage foreclosures. The massive wave of job losses is just now starting to manifest in the Northeast and we will soon find ourselves on par with the nation. Yet, the current leadership in Sturbridge seems somewhat oblivious to what is happening nationally.

I have previously been a strong supporter of renovating the Town Hall and Center School. I recognize the value they add to our community and our town common. I have never suggested completely abandoning the Town Hall, but rather reconsidering its use for another town project at another time, when the economy favors such.

An expenditure of nearly $6 million dollars (and surely more once construction begins) must be scrutinized in a most deliberate manner possible and there appears to be a lack of convincing evidence that such is being undertaken by our current leadership.

Somewhat disconcerting as well, is the rush to place this item on a Special Town Meeting Warrant. Clearly, one recognizes the concern with having the money appropriated so that when the bids are opened we have an opportunity to engage a contractor and move forward. More importantly however, one recognizes the importance of conducting our affairs in the best interests of the taxpayers; that is the ultimate responsibility of town leadership.

To be placing ourselves in a situation to where our internal public discussions in Sturbridge (as it relates to such a significant expenditure) are being dictated by a deadline for proposal submissions is inconsistent sound public policy. At this point I am currently unconvinced that the priorities of our leaders (as it relates to this project at least) are appropriately focused.

My 7 Point Proposal for the First 12 Months

Over the next few months, I will be actively engaging Sturbridge residents in an effort to gain your support and your vote. The honor and privilege of serving as your selectman comes with a great deal of responsibility on my part and expectations on yours. In seeking your support, I have a fundamental obligation to provide you with as much detail as possible regarding my positions and my visions.

To that end I am committed to ensuring that there is no doubt as to what you can expect from me - should I be granted the honor of serving you. My positions on issues will be clearly articulated in print and available via this medium at all times. This will ensure that residents understand my approach to issues, my deliberative process, and the basis for the information used when coming to a decision. As well, it will provide each of you with a means of holding me accountable.

Each and every day of a three year term you have a right to expect and demand the highest level of integrity, commitment, and objectivity from your selectmen in dealing with the issues facing our community. I have an obligation to ensure that every decision I make is based upon principles as opposed to personalities.

There will be times when the decisions I make will be in conflict with positions held by long-time friends within the community. That is inevitable, and despite those relationships, I will come to my final determinations based upon the facts through careful review of all information, and grounded ultimately in the overwhelming needs of the many.

With that said, one would do well to remember that as a community activist one can advocate strongly from one side or another; as a selectman, however, one must always govern from the middle. The remainder of this post can be read by accessing the READ MORE link below.

This is, and shall always remain, my personal commitment to each of you.

Moving forward, I have outlined (and will continue to outline) a list of items that I am committed to addressing in the first 3 – 12 months of my term. These items will provide the basis for a comprehensive review and discussion regarding the manner in which we conduct and project our responsibilities to those we serve. This list should not be interpreted as being exclusive of other items warranting review, but merely as a starting point for more open and engaged dialogue on all issues of town governance.

1) Comprehensive Budget Analysis

We are well aware of the current economic crisis facing this nation, and in fact the world. Nationally our unemployment rate is at 7.6%, with many predicting 9-10% unemployment by year’s end. Home foreclosures have increased 81% since the same period last year and 225% since 2006. Further complicating the national crisis is a significant retrenchment in consumer spending which in the last 6 months has demonstrated the lowest rise in 47 years. At a time when consumer spending is receding in such magnitude due to the economic crisis, it is unconscionable that leadership at any level entity would propose or support spending initiatives that are unnecessary and or unwarranted.

At the very first regularly scheduled meeting (if not provided sooner in response to my ongoing inquiries) I will publicly request a comprehensive list of non-essential budget items planned or currently being implemented along with the taxpayer costs associated with those expenditures. I will request that a spreadsheet be developed (and made publicly available on the town website) that details the tax levy upon residents for each of the items considered or approved. This will enable residents to clearly see the associated monthly cost per resident for each item proposed or approved. As well, I will ask that these items be categorized in terms of how and why they were prioritized on the list.

Subsequently, each budget request that comes before the Board of Selectmen during the course of the year should be added to this list, and made publicly available on the town website, along with the item’s projected tax levy. This will enable residents to make more informed judgments about the use of taxpayer dollars.

All too often individual requests are acted upon as completely separate entities with little connectivity to their impact on the overall taxpayer debt. This frequently results in requests being approved because of what appears to be an insignificant tax increase associated with a particular item. Sadly, as each of these requests add up, the burden on Sturbridge taxpayers increases, resulting in diminished discretionary income for some and a loss of obligated income for others. This serves only to the detriment of residents.

This spreadsheet will include, yet not be limited to, the following items and their subsequent tax impact upon residents:

1. WWTF
2. Town Hall/Center School Renovations
2a. Alternate site locations for the Town Hall
3. Burgess Elementary School Renovation/Reconstruction Project
4. Sturbridge Landfill/Recycling Center
5. Non-dedicated funds (i.e. Community Preservation Act) associated with the purchase of land and/or capital expenditures.
6. Legal Fees and associated costs in relation to our contractual agreements with Kopelman and Paige as well as alternative agreements with other acceptable prominent law firms.
6a. In line with this request, I will seek a public accounting and detailed explanation as to the process and rationale for maintaining our relationship with Kopelman and Paige as opposed to “market shopping”
7. Hamant Brook Dam Renovations/Maintenance vs. the Stream Restoration Project proposed by the State Division of Fisheries and Wildlife.
8. A detailed report and tax levy estimate on the underground power line proposal that the Town Administrator has indicated he will bring before the town for the 2010 Annual Town Meeting.
9. A review of the current tax assessments levied upon residents

Understanding the level of detail that these requests entail, I will commit to working with the Board to ensure that the foundation for this proposal be initiated within the first 4 months of my term and completely operational prior to the fiscal 2010 Annual Town Meeting.

2) Burgess Elementary School

It is no secret that we have one of the finest educational systems in the area. One lays witness daily to the remarkably talented youth that grace our community. This is certainly no accident and stems from the selfless sacrifices of parents and educators. Our children represent our future and the foundation that we lay for them, is in effect the foundation that we lay for the future prosperity of our community.

Unfortunately, our children and teachers at the Burgess School find themselves in less than “ideal” conditions that will only continue to deteriorate. We must endeavor to identify resources with which to facilitate the construction of a facility that is more conducive to our children’s needs.

Current estimates on the Burgess School are approximately $42 million, with the state thus far proposing to cover a minimum of 51% of those costs. In balancing the return on investment and the necessity of such an endeavor, we would do well to recognize the difference between “spending” and investing.

As I’ve previously stated, the future prosperity – financial, social, and historical) of a community is directly linked to the investment it makes in its youth and its educational system. Investing in a new elementary school for our children, will reap significant rewards in terms of the desirability for businesses and residents to relocate in the area.

World class businesses recognize the value of locating in desirable communities which invest in their youth and their seniors. Potential employees and residents associated with those businesses fully understand and prioritize the educational and social needs of children and seniors.

As your selectman, I am committed to promoting the renovation/reconstruction of a new elementary school at every appropriate opportunity, be it locally or if necessary at the state level. Simultaneously, working with the Board and members of the School Committee, I will encourage and pursue as much public discussion as necessary in order to ensure that residents are provided with the very best information possible with which to make an informed decision.

3) Senior Services

There is little doubt that many of our seniors are faced with mounting challenges that present significant difficulties in terms of their quality of life. Escalating costs coupled with dwindling fixed incomes have placed some of our seniors in a most vulnerable and precarious predicament. The impact of tax increases and service reductions has a much more immediate affect upon them.

Elderbus: Consider the plight of seniors who have depended upon Elderbus services to shuttle them back and forth between medical visits. Recent cuts in service over the last year have forced reductions in the number of hours and trips that Elderbus operates. In turn, this has resulted in extended day trips for seniors in order to attend a 30 minute doctor’s visit. What was once accomplished in a matter of hours has now become a full day-long trip for many who travel out of town for doctor visits.

This creates the necessity for seniors to plan a day’s worth of snacks, lunches, and medications if they need to address medical issues. For some, the logistics of such can be overwhelming and may result in failure to attend planned appointments or to simply stop making them altogether. This is unfortunate, and more importantly, it is unnecessary.

There are 21 communities in the Elderbus service area and each of those communities shares a portion of the services associated with Elderbus. An increase of $26,000 would provide the additional revenue needed to offset the costs of a second van. This cost, if spread among the 21 communities (perhaps based upon ridership/usage), would result in minimal to zero impact upon most municipal budgets. The issue here is one of engagement.

As your selectman I will personally reach out to the selectmen and/or appropriate authorities in the 21 Elderbus service communities in an effort to engage them in dialogue on a comprehensive and unified approach to addressing this shortfall. I will initiate this outreach within the first 2 months of the election, with the hopes of providing a proposal to the town within 6 months of the election.

Senior Municipal Service Program: Each year the town sets aside $10,000 for the Senior Municipal Service Program, which enables seniors within a certain earnings level to provide volunteer services to the town, which, based upon the hours worked, are converted into credits or reductions on their tax bill. The Town Administrator’s webpage indicates that up to $500 can be earned as a credit by those utilizing the program. Other figures indicate the number to be more in the range of $750.

This is an outstanding program that affords qualifying seniors with the opportunity to provide much needed assistance to the town at bargain rates that are conveyed to the seniors on their tax bill. Sadly, the program has been underutilized for a variety of reasons, all of which can be easily addressed. Consider the following statistics provided relative to the use of this program:

In fiscal 2007, there were 2 total participants resulting in $628.75 in tax credits being issued.

In fiscal 2008, there were again 2 total participants resulting in $1,000 in tax credits being issued.

As of the date of this publication, there are currently 4 residents participating in the program, which would result in a total of $2,000 in tax credits being issued.

It is unfortunate that the number of seniors taking advantage of this program is so low. Each year, the town is left with a balance in this account, which is then utilized elsewhere. An effective program of this nature would - and should - result in zero funds available at the end of the fiscal year. This would indicate an effective and convincing outreach campaign relative to the merits of the program.

Recently, I shared some thoughts with the Town Administrator relative to the reasons some qualifying seniors are, and have been, reluctant to take advantage of this program. It is my hope that he will carefully consider the merits of that information and take the appropriate steps.

Within the first month of my tenure I will work closely with the Town Administrator to develop a more sensitive approach to the implementation of this program.

4) Sturbridge Landfill/Recycling Center

Within the first month of my tenure (if not acted upon sooner based upon my ongoing inquiries) I will request that (per the recommendation of the Finance Committee over the last two years), a comprehensive study of the Sturbridge Landfill/Recycling Center be undertaken to evaluate/identify the costs vs. the benefits associated with the current financial management of that center. Additionally, as requested by the Finance Committee for the past two years, the study will include the following:

1. Cost of on going operations and budget
2. Land Fill Cap Fund
3. Fee generation
4. Cost Reductions
5. Town trash /recycling initiatives
6. Hauler recycling alternatives
7. Landfill closure
8. Future “Brownfield” options: After capping, some town landfills are recycled into community assets, using them for recreation areas.

The Sturbridge Landfill/Recycling Center has been identified as an asset by our current leadership; few would argue to the contrary. However, the financial management of that asset is somewhat questionable in light of the projections by our Town Administrator that we currently have a $200,000 shortfall in the landfill cap (closure) account for 2009 and that such will need to be appropriated this year.

Additionally, the fiscal 2009 budget for the landfill/recycling center was $280,000. Considering that 2500 stickers (not individual households, as many households have multiple stickers) were issued last year (approximately ¼ of our population), it is hard to rationalize that such a study is not warranted. Yet, current town leadership has resisted such a study for years. Taxpayers deserve the right to know if our return on investment is consistent with our expectations. I am committed to ensuring this study is initiated within the first 8 weeks of my election.

Green Initiatives: There is no doubt that energy conservation is a key component of overall cost management and environmental protection. Implementing a strong locally focused “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle and Recover” program can have a significant impact in creating a greener and more sustainable environment while simultaneously producing financial benefits to the community if undertaken as a comprehensive approach.

A community wide approach to “Green Initiative” implementation can produce significant savings in energy costs - both residential and municipal - while providing significant benefit to our local environment. For example, it is estimated that recycling one aluminum can saves the energy that it takes to power a television for three hours. Certainly, this has little to no immediate impact upon an individual’s energy costs, but in terms of the bigger picture, it translates to resource sustainability in a more global view.

Sturbridge was once a leading statewide innovator in its approach to recycling when it first developed and implemented the current recycling center. Sadly, with the passage of time, we have become a spectator, watching numerous communities statewide take the lead on green initiatives.

Over the past two years we have talked at length about the merits of a more pro-active approach towards eco-tourism and developing it as one component of our overall economic vision. We have done little, however, in terms of increasing our green approach to promoting our community.

The director of the Chamber of Commerce has indicated at several public meetings that a strong component of any eco-tourist program is the implementation of green initiatives within the community as part of an overall marketing approach. There is very little cost associated with implementing such a program and the return on investment in terms of education, energy conservation, and environmental sustainability make it a plus – plus for the community.

Within the first six months of my tenure, I will work with the Board to schedule a work session presentation on green alternatives that can be implemented at the local level. Utilizing local resources - perhaps representatives from local activist groups - we can begin the educational process of dialogue and program availability, as well as researching appropriate initiatives that can be implemented at the local level.

5) Charter Communications

Within the first 3 months, I will initiate a request for a public accounting of all revenues associated with, and services provided by, Charter Communications.

It is no secret that residents have complained for years about the poor video and audio reception that has plagued this community in terms of public broadcast of meetings. On repeated occasions the Town Administrator has provided updates relative to his communications with Charter representatives, yet still issues persist.

The Town Administrator has indicated that Sturbridge receives $50,000 annually from Charter Communications and that a portion of those funds are utilized to pay for the services of students who operate the console during meetings. I will request a public accounting of those funds and an itemized list of all expenditures associated with the Charter account.

Additionally, I will request that a public presentation be provided by a Charter Communications representative in terms of their efforts to address the ongoing issues associated with public broadcast of meetings.

Additionally, I will request a public accounting as to the rationale and limitations that prevent us from providing continuous loop broadcast of all televised meetings on public access television. In today’s technological age, I am unconvinced that this issue cannot be rectified in a more expeditious manner.

6) Public access to information

In the 2006 Finance Committee Annual Report, the FinCom identified the need to ensure that residents had access to “…accurate [and] relevant information on numerous and often new subjects”. They went on to write that without such “…there is little chance for sound decision-making”.

Yet, 3 years later, in an age of information technology, we find ourselves still lacking in providing online publication of simple meeting minutes for a number of town entities. In this day and age one can certainly argue that this is inexcusable and contrary to the principles of open and accessible government.

To that end, I commit to pursuing the online publication of all appropriate meeting minutes and to have such initiated and available for public review within the first 6 months of the election.

7) Sewer Service Area Review

As most of us know, the sewer service areas addressed last year by the Board of Selectmen were done with a significant level of engineering, as well as a level of political positioning. This is understandable, but not completely in the best interests of the intent of water and sewer distribution.

Noticeably absent from a position of prominence in the discussions pertaining to sewer service designations was the Board of Health. In part, this was due to a level of reluctance on the part of the BOH to engage this issue as they were leery of being caught up in political debate. In part, it was due as well to a failure by some to completely engineer all aspects of the sewer service area with science void of politics.

When one considers the importance of our water resources (i.e. lakes, ponds, wetlands) and the number of septic systems that threaten those resources through certain and ultimate failure, it is inconceivable that more direct and frank participation from the Board of Health was not undertaken.

Within the first few months of my tenure I will call for a complete review of our sewer service area and request direct and proportionate input from the Board of Health and our DPW Director. As well, if and where warranted, I will request the Board’s support in soliciting input from representatives from the engineering firm that provided consultant services during the initial sewer watershed discussions - Tighe and Bond.

Additionally, on future sewer service extension or service requests, I will seek appropriate input from the Board of Health to ensure that appropriate concerns and issues are considered in the equation.

In closing, it may appear to some that this approach may seem ambitious, while others may view it otherwise. In considering the challenges facing this nation and this community over the next three years, I believe it necessary for us to develop a sense of urgency as it relates to the business of governance.

The economic numbers I’ve previously stated - 7.6% unemployment with predictions of 9-10% by year’s end, along with the staggering increase in foreclosures - 86% increase over this same period last year - coupled with the lowest consumer spending percentage in over 40 years, leave little doubt that vigorous attention to detail is critical if we are to minimize the detrimental impact to our community.

The level of engagement on the issues itemized in this plan will better enable us to manage our affairs while simultaneously positioning us to take advantage of those opportunities that will surely manifest.

To Who’s Benefit

Over the last several days, I have struggled in terms of posting an article in response to the information released to the press, which identified two town employees as being the subject of scrutiny by the Town Administrator.

In light of my decision to seek voter support for the position of Sturbridge selectman, I did not want to be accused of politicizing this issue. To raise the issue risked assertions by some that I was engaging in political positioning. To say nothing, risked a contradiction in terms of my own self-respect and credibility as it relates to the manner in which I either objectively address issues with conviction or I do not. Thus, I cannot remain silent. The remainder of this post can be read by accessing the READ MORE link below.

Clearly, for those who’ve read the article, there is little doubt that an issue of jurisdiction has manifested at Town Hall. As well, there are concerns and questions about hourly wages that have been disbursed to town employees. Each of these issues is significant and no doubt important in terms of the responsibility, effectiveness, and efficiency of government. As well, there is a fiduciary responsibility for government to ensure that the conveyance of taxpayer money is done in the most open and appropriate manner possible.

Thus, there is neither disagreement nor lack of support on the part of this writer for ensuring that tax dollars and fees collected are distributed correctly. As a resident and now as a candidate, I have raised the issue of fiscal responsibility on a number of occasions over the last several years. To that end, I welcome a review of expenditures or wages disbursed by all departments on a more regular basis to ensure the efficiency and appropriateness of such.

What I do question as a resident however, is the manner by which this particular review is being conducted in the press. To be clear, I am not questioning the press itself, as they have an obligation to report, but rather the information provided to the press as it relates to this issue. Two employees have been specifically identified as being the subjects of a financial review.

Currently, there has been little more provided than speculation, innuendo, and the suggestion of possible “malfeasance”. Clearly, the simple appearance of such warrants an in-depth review in order to fulfill one’s fiduciary responsibility to this community.

With that said however, one must question the release of employee names when said employees could just as well be the victims of poor record keeping or poor management practices as opposed to malfeasance. Until a review is complete and the determination is made, both sides of the equation are equally viable outcomes.

Let me be very clear, I am not suggesting the lack of malfeasance on the part of these employees any more than I am suggesting that such malfeasance exits. I am simply stating, that until such has been determined – if in fact, such is the case – the naming of these two individuals by the Town Administrator or anyone else associated with this review, is in my view, a disservice to these individuals, their families, and this community.

Despite the final outcome, whatever that may be, these individuals, one of whom is a life-long member of this community, have had their names associated with possible malfeasance. As such, it is likely that some may have already convicted them in the court of public opinion. It is one thing to produce hard data, evidence, or witnesses that can quickly substantiate allegations; it is something all together different to do so without such.

To be clear, I have no personal bond to either one of these individuals, which is in any way influencing my position. I met one of them briefly and solely during a plumbing inspection of a gas fireplace insert 5 years ago. The other, I’ve interacted with on three occasions in terms of town related affairs. My concern here rests solely in the appropriateness, or lack thereof, in terms of what appears to be unnecessarily identifying employees in the press prior to the conclusion of any significant review.

Thus, one is left to contemplate just who benefits from the naming of these two employees or any employees for that matter, prior to an appropriately and objectively conducted review. This writer can think of no one, and as such, I find it unfortunate and misguided that such occurred.

The Environmental Economics of Hamant Brook - Part II

Following up on the Hamant Brook Stream Restoration proposal brought forth by the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (see The Environmental Economics of Hamant Brook), one is struck by the information contained in the Conservation Restriction (CR) that accompanies the property. Said CR, filed with the Registry of Deeds (Book 39299, Page 123), clearly identifies that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts owns (in perpetuity) a conservation easement on the property purchased by the Town of Sturbridge from its former owner - OSV.

Formerly known as a Consensual Order of Taking, the CR, which was signed by the Sturbridge B.O.S., the Sturbridge Conservation Commission, and representatives from the Department of Fish and Game, clearly spells out the meaning, intent, purpose, limitations, and authorizations for the property.

Additionally, the CR, as well as the property deed, clearly indicates that the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (DFW) paid $1.9 million for the easement. That said, DFW, or more specifically the State of Massachusetts, is in effect an equal co-purchaser and equal co-owner of the property. The agreements to purchase the land, complete with the CR attached to the land, which effectually allowed the town to purchase (as a partner) the property, were well understood by all at the time of closing. The remainder of this post can be read by accessing the READ MORE link below.

With that said, one is reminded of the letter DFW District Supervisor Bill Davis sent to the Conservation Commission on April 17, 2008, wherein he wrote the following “The restoration of the brook from artificial impoundments with dams in various states of disrepair, to a natural, free-flowing stream, is in the best interest of habitat diversity and consistent with the intent of the Conservation Easement, which enabled the town to acquire the land”.

Bearing that letter in mind, consider the following from Section III, Permitted Acts and Uses listed in the CR which all parties were joint signatories to.

(8) The control, management, and eradication of species not native to The Commonwealth of Massachusetts under a Non-Native Species Control Plan approved by The Commonwealth.

(9) The stocking of sport wildlife and fish species such as pheasants and trout for recreational purposes under a Sport Species Stocking Plan approve by The Commonwealth.

(10) The enhancement of habitat for native plants and animals and the enhancement of natural communities under a Habit Enhancement Plan approved by The Commonwealth.

(11) The repair and/or removal of dams on the Premises in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations and the restoration to a natural condition of the stream channel and associated riparian habitats as approved by The Commonwealth.

It seems rather clear from the document signed by all, that the dam removal or stream restoration proposal was clearly a permitted act and use, which is consistent with the mission statement and responsibility of the DFW. It seems a bit odd at this point, that there is any significant level of resistance from any affected parties considering that it was clearly outlined as a permitted use and thus a possibility from the onset. As well, when one considers that based upon the CR purchased and owned by DFW for $1.9 million, it is somewhat of a stretch to argue that they have little input relative to the property.

One significant concern raised by an individual well respected in his field and certainly by this author, is the issue of access, or lack thereof, if the dams are removed. Clearly, considering the significant amount of time and effort thus far invested by members of our Public Lands Advisory Committee (PLAC) and members of the Trails Committee in establishing a series of well developed trails on the property, this is a item well worthy of attention. Void of the dams and any bridges that may have been developed in concert with those structures, there remains concern about the inability to maintain connectivity for pedestrian and/or motorized vehicle access .

Accordingly, DFW was contacted by this writer and conversations specific to this issue were engaged. Specifically, it was asked if DFW would be willing to work with the town to address this concern and support – financially – the construction of an appropriate means of pedestrian and vehicle (emergency) access. The short answer was “yes”.

However, it was pointed out that the access issue has nothing to do with the Stream Restoration proposal, but everything to do with the interpretation of the CR as it relates to vehicles. Simply stated, regardless of what the outcome is of any stream restoration project, the access issue is separate and exists with or without the dams.

Referring again to Section III Permitted Acts and Uses, the following in terms of motorized vehicle is addressed:

(3) The construction, maintenance, and repair of non-paved hiking trails and paths, subject to the Forest Management Standards in Exhibit B attached hereto, the marking and identifying thereof with signs, and the use of said trails and paths for the above permitted recreational activities, and the periodic use following written notification to The Commonwealth of motorized vehicles if and as necessary for the purpose of maintain such trails.

(7) Access by automobiles and other four-wheeled vehicles for (a) activities authorized under Sections III and IV, (b) as required by The Commonwealth to carry out its duties, rights, ad responsibilities under this Conservation Restriction, (c) as required by the police, firemen, or other governmental agents in carrying out their lawful duties, and (d) as necessary to provide appropriate handicap access.

Based upon the sections cited above, it seems clear that the access issue should be relatively simple to address, though perhaps not easy, as interactions between governmental entities – state and local – tend to become strained. Additionally, once emotions begin to replace intellect as the foundation for discussion, simplicity is no longer part of the equation. With that said however, in terms of at least this writer’s conversations with DFW representatives, there appears to be a high level of willingness to engage on this issue while working collectively towards an acceptable solution.

Being equal partners in the stewardship of this property, it is in the best interests of all concerned to collectively work towards addressing the conservation restrictions associated with this land. To that end, restoring Hamant Brook to its natural state via dam removal (consistent with the CR which enabled the town to purchase the property), while ensuring continued trail connectivity along with accessibility for motorized vehicles (consistent with the CR) can and should be done collectively and objectively.

A Critical Time for Leadership

Back in December, I challenged our town leadership to reconsider the Town Hall/Center School project and to reevaluate the timing of such a significant expenditure. With steadily rising unemployment, record numbers of foreclosures, a deepening international recession, along with state aid cuts, local service reductions and threats of municipal job losses; it was becoming ever more clear that the worst was yet to come.

The initial reaction to this request was less than enthusiastic in terms of considering any alternatives to the original project. The responses consisted of a). “…the funds are already there and have been approved by town meeting” and b) the town hall project is “…an investment in our local economy” and “…an economic investment in our tourism”.

Clearly, there may be merit in either of these thought processes, but I would argue as well that there is danger in arguments offered on potentially unstable foundations. It is certainly a fact that on April 30, 2007, the funds for this project ($4,320,000.00) were approved at town meeting. It is also a fact, that said funds were approved at a time when our national economy was significantly more robust than it is today. U.S. unemployment during April of 2007 was 4.5%; today it stands over 7.2%, with many analysts predicting 9 -10% unemployment by years end.

In terms of this project being one which would result in increased tourism, one is unable to find any credible data that suggests that renovations, as planned, to our Town Hall will result in increased revenues from tourism. I am unconvinced that tourists will swarm to Sturbridge at the prospect of gazing upon a renovated Town Hall.

To be clear, I am not and have never suggested abandoning ownership of the Town Hall. I have and will continue to question the value of such a project, as planned, in light of the disastrous national economy.

Thankfully, as more attention was focused on this issue via additional correspondence, letters to the editor, and public input, we have recently learned of possible alternatives being considered. (The remainder of this post can be read by accessing the READ MORE link below).

In early January, I challenged that same leadership to initiate a study of our financial management of the Sturbridge landfill/recycling center. This was based upon repeated recommendations by the Finance Committee to undertake such a study in order to quantify the overall return on our investment, as well as available options. Considering that our fiscal 2009 budget for the landfill was approximately $280,000 and that we have an estimated $200,000 shortfall in our landfill cap fund, such a study seems worthy of consideration.

Initially, the reaction to this recommendation was also equally unenthusiastic. In fact, the sole argument offered against such a study was the prevailing fear that any recycling fees which might manifest as a result of such a study, would likely lead to “illegal dumping”. Oddly, no science or statistical data was provided to support such a theory.

In fact, based upon careful review of statewide practices, an abundance of data clearly refutes such a position. It should be noted, that the purpose of such a study is comprehensive in nature and designed to focus on a range of options and/or possibilities, not solely resident based fees, though clearly that is one option.

When one considers that 2500 recycling stickers (individual stickers not households) were issued in Sturbridge last year (approximately 1/4 of our population) and the increasing annual costs of maintaining the landfill/recycling center ($280,000) coupled with the $200,000 shortfall, there appears to be no logical argument against undertaking such a study.

Thankfully, as more attention was focused on this issue via additional correspondence, letters to the editor, and public input, a commitment was recently received to engage a higher level of public discussion on this issue.

Some may recall that several months back there was discussion about the Route 20 power lines being relocated underground. Clearly, there is significant merit in the positive aesthetic value this would have in terms of an important gateway through our community There is no doubt that this worthy item should remain on our “to do” list over the long-term, but its timing was certainly questionable.

To bring forward an issue of such low priority (in terms overall benefit to the community), which would have increased our tax burden solely for the purpose of a power-line “face-lift” would have demonstrated a fundamental lack of economic sensitivity. Fortunately, correspondence from concerned residents and public officials undoubtedly influenced the decision to withdraw this agenda item.

Similarly, a decision reached in October of 2008 to support the installation of artificial turf on four fields at Tantasqua High (at an estimated cost of $2 million dollars) indicated what many perceived to be a leadership failure in terms of understanding the magnitude of the national economy. Though clearly, the proposal has merit and may provide long-term benefit, it is hard argue that such benefit is substantive enough given the current economy to warrant such an expenditure. Fortunately, the proposal was placed on hold when other member communities of the Tantasqua High School District voted not to proceed with the project.

At a time when our nation is witnessing the “…worst year for consumer spending since 1961”, with Americans tightening their belts, spending less and saving more, it is disconcerting that local leaders have been inclined to take an opposite approach.

Undoubtedly, it can be difficult to deliberate on such matters, particularly when faced with the subtle pressures that may manifest from well-intended passionate supporters. Clearly, each of the examples cited thus far provides value to the community in one form or another. Yet, we can ill afford as a community, nor as a nation for that matter, to consider any proposal that comes before us in a vacuum.

Each passing week, more and more Americans, and yes, more and more Sturbridge residents are presented with increasing economic challenges that are significantly altering their lifestyles and their stress levels. Our appointed and elected leaders must demonstrate the courage, pragmatism, and wisdom to approach the difficult challenges ahead in a manner consistent with our long-term best interests.

It is critical that our leadership understands the need to become more proactive, more informed, and much more engaged. The decisions made over the next 3 years will profoundly impact our community and our children for the next 20 years. Those decisions cannot be based upon the political ideologies of a single individual, group, or thought process; they must be based upon pragmatism, objectivity, and intellect.

The Environmental Economics of Hamant Brook

On January 12, 2009, Mr. Todd Richards - Fisheries Biologist with the MA Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (DFW) – presented a Stream Restoration proposal to the B.O.S. and the ConCom that DFW believes would restore Hamant Brook to its natural state (a free-flowing stream), while simultaneously improving the water quality in the Quinebaug River.

To accomplish the DFW stream restoration proposal, a series of dams currently restricting water flow on town owned land would be removed. The property in question includes approximately 826 acres of land purchased by the residents of Sturbridge. Two of the dams included in the stream restoration proposal are now town owned land, the third is on property owned by an abutter.

In a pre-presentation letter sent to the Conservation Commission on April 17, 2008, DFW District Supervisor William Davis conveyed his belief that “…the Hamant Brook Restoration proposal presents the town of Sturbridge with a unique conservation and funding opportunity”.

Mr. Davis went on to write that “The restoration of the brook from artificial impoundments with dams in various states of disrepair, to a natural, free-flowing stream, is in the best interest of habitat diversity and consistent with the intent of the Conservation Easement, which enabled the town to acquire the land”. The remainder of this post can be read by accessing the READ MORE link below.

Additionally, Mr. Davis highlighted the “…outside funding source currently available through Millennium Power [which] provides the town with a means to eliminate future substantial costs associated with dam repair”. Those costs are estimated to be approximately $715,000, of which $570,000 would be borne by the residents of Sturbridge, with the other $145,000 borne by the other dam owner. In addition, the annual maintenance fees associated with each of the three (3) dams, is estimated to be $2,000 per structure, of which $4,000 would be shouldered annually by the residents of Sturbridge.

The DFW presentation outlined a number of benefits - environmental and economic - which they believe (based upon their experience, expertise, and mission statement) would manifest in direct response to the stream restoration proposal. According to their study, the environmental benefits (in no particular order) include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:

1. Restoration of the stream to its natural state
2. Water quality improvement in the Quinebaug River
3. An increase in the quantity and quality of brook trout habitat
4. Restoration of access to a high quality spawning habitat
5. Expansion of fishing opportunities for native brook trout
6. Improved fish communities in the Quinebaug River.
7. Restoration of riverine flows towards natural regime
8. Restoration of thermal continuity improving coldwater fish community
9. Restoration of the natural free-flowing stream setting
10. Restoration of historical passage for multiple species
11. Reduction/Elimination of the expanding invasive weed species

To be clear, the Hamant Brook Stream Restoration proposal is completely consistent with the Conservation Restriction attached to the land, which enabled the residents of Sturbridge to acquire this property.

When one considers that DFW is “…responsible for the conservation - including restoration, protection and management - of fish and wildlife resources for the benefit and enjoyment of the public”, one is hard pressed to find contradictions between their stream restoration proposal and the overall environmental and recreational benefits to Sturbridge residents and visitors. Additionally, as DFW is required to “…balance the needs of people and wildlife today, so that wildlife will be available for everyone’s enjoyment, today and for future generations”, it would appear - based upon the DFW report – that the stream restoration proposal is a unique conservation opportunity for the residents of Sturbridge.

There are however - in addition to the DFW identified environmental benefits - several financial and long-term economic implications that we are obligated to consider as well. Any project or expenditure that entails the potential use of taxpayer money must be weighed heavily in terms of its costs vs. its benefits to the community. This particular project is no exception.

The residents of Sturbridge purchased this property for the environmental, recreational, and ecological benefits it affords. With those benefits however, comes a significant responsibility for us to manage and maintain that property in the safest and most appropriate manner reasonable. The dams associated with the Sturbridge property are part of that management and maintenance responsibility.

The DFW report, as prepared by Inter-Fluve Inc, outlines what appears to be a good faith estimate (based upon similar DFW projects), which indicates a $570,000 liability to the residents of Sturbridge for repair/restoration of the dams. Additionally, we will be burdened with an ongoing annual maintenance liability of approximately $4,000. That being said, we must consider the overall cost of such - in perpetuity - balanced against the benefit to the community of retaining those dams.

In reviewing the information presented during the January 12 meeting, one is challenged to find a single convincing argument that there is any substantial benefit to the town, nor the eco-system for that matter, in maintaining the Hamant Brook dams. A Fisheries Biologist who has studied the available options has concluded that restoring Hamant Brook to its natural state is in the best interests of the overall environment and the eco-system.

Additionally, one has to weigh the benefit or lack thereof with incurring substantial repair/renovation costs - $570,000 and counting – along with annual maintenance liabilities, to maintain ponds, which are being overtaken by invasive weed species so that a relatively small number of residents can pond fish.

Any regular visitor to Hamant Brook can verify that the numbers of individuals utilizing same for fishing is extremely small. Thus, we as residents must ask ourselves just how much money we are willing to spend in so far as the long-term financial commitment to the dams at Hamant Brook, and just how seriously we prioritize the conservation of the environment and natural habitats.

Last year we heard all manner of hyperbole about eco-tourism and the importance of positioning Sturbridge to be an eco-tourist destination. Yet, when presented with an opportunity to expand fishing prospects for native brook trout (particularly considering the numbers of anglers who travel great distances to sport their skills - clearly an eco-tourist opportunity) some of those same voices now stand in opposition to the Hamant Brook Stream Restoration proposal.

Equally odd is the fact that some of our local self proclaimed “environmentalists” who regularly champion the cause of conserving natural habitats and protecting our eco-systems, are now crying foul as it relates to restoring Hamant Brook to its natural state. Sadly, they offered little (in fact nothing) in terms of objective or concrete evidence with which to support their opposition to this proposal.

Instead the meeting was used as an opportunity by local “conservationists” to attack Millennium Power (who was state mandated to set aside these funds), as well as Casella (lost me on this one), the town of Sturbridge for approving a 1.3 WWTF (someone has to explain this one to me as well) along with the Planning Board for allowing a “truck stop” on Route 15 - which for the record is completely inaccurate. The Planning Board did not approve a truck stop on Route 15; that project - if undertaken - is being located in another community zoned for such, while the zoning modification supported by the Planning Board (commercial) would not permit a Truck Stop on the Sturbridge parcel.

Thus, here again we are faced with a situation wherein our elected and appointed officials must bear in mind that the decision they make, as well as the leadership they provide (or fail to provide) will have a profound impact upon this community for decades. The decision in terms of the Hamant Brook Restoration proposal cannot be based upon emotional attachments to an unnaturally created pond, or some self-serving NIMBY or political ideologies.

This decision must be based upon economics and ecology - period. From an economic standpoint, based upon the information thus far presented by Fisheries Biologist - Todd Richards, the stream restoration project is, quite simply, a no-brainer. The financial liability of maintaining those dams, far outweigh any benefits one might perceive exists. There is no significant value nor anything unique in these ponds that is not found in hundreds of other nearby bodies of water. Conversely, the environmental and economic value of free-flowing streams is well documented. To invest taxpayer money for the purpose of maintaining a fishing hole for an incredibly small number residents is irresponsible.

From an environmental standpoint, removal of the dams and restoration of Hamant Brook to its natural state is in the best long-term conservation interests of the land, and those species which utilize it and depend upon it. It is also completely consistent with the Conservation Restriction attached to the land, which enabled the residents of Sturbridge to acquire this property. Additionally, it provides opportunities via a free-flowing stream that are either rare or in many cases, simply unavailable.

The Hamant Brook Restoration proposal as presented and supported by currently available data, is highly beneficial to the environment and economically in the best long-term interests of this community. Allowing taxpayer money to be misused for the benefit of a few, over the needs and benefits of the many, is not in this community's best interests.