Here are the statewide and South Berwick voting results on the three referendum items:
Life in South Berwick, Maine
Event Calendar
November 2008 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 « Oct 
Dec »
So let me get this straight. It’s not OK to raise taxes on beverages to pay for someones health insurance, but it is OK to raise the state debt by a substantial amount for drinking water??? I don’t want to hear any more complaining from you dolts about your taxes going up!!!!! All you hear is people complaining about taxes, whether it be local, state, or federal. I too am fed up. Instead of tax payers coming together and sending a clear message to Augusta enough is enough, it is telling Augusta once again that if they don’t want to make the hard decisions, just put it on the ballot. We the sheep of Maine will let you spend ALL you want. Well almost, just don’t tax someones beer!!! By voting down questions #1 and #3 we the people of the State of Maine had a chance to send Augusta a clear message. No more. If you want these projects funded, make cuts to fund them. Please no one misunderstand me on my position. I’m not saying that either one of these issues are not important. Just how they are, or planning to fund them. Augusta is not going to change how they do business unless they are forced to. Lets hope there is something left of our great state when they finally get the message.
I consistently vote no on bond issues, and have for years-it IS the only way to send a message. I’ve never understood Maine voters when it comes to bond issues. You are right-we all complain about the taxes we pay, but we can’t seem to say ‘no’.
We can’t seem to say “no” to the state, to the town (church for example) or to the school board. I agree fed up and L J.
I agree in prinicpal with everything said, so far, about the relationship between bond issues and higher taxes.
However, Question 1 was about more than ‘a couple cents on a beer’ as it is continually protrayed. There was also a healthy tax on non-Dirigo insurance payouts. Those of us who do not use the state-supported insurance would have been penalized, and every time our insurance paid for anything, we would pay (through the company) a tax to help support Dirigo.
The state is not very good at running an insurance program. The rest of us have been paying for it through our taxes since its inception. The bill they rammed through last spring would have had us paying more.
Dirigo is a failure. It is unfortunate for those who belong to it, but the state sold you a bill of goods…and the rest of us have been paying for the failure while we get nothing in return.
If Maine wants to solve the problem it can get out of the way and allow its citizens to purchase the insurance they want across state lines.
We definately need more options for insurers WITHIN the state. This should, theoretically, create competition, and improve quality.
The big problem with purchasing insurance across state lines is this: the insurance companies would be allowed to headquarter themselves wherever they want. Likely, they will set up shop in whichever state has the fewest regulations working against them. They will make record profits by refusing to cover things like pre-existing conditions, mental health services, developmental therapies, etc. because that state’s laws say that they don’t have to.
Insurance companies are not vying for the chance to do business here in this state, so other alternatives need to be considered. Saying insurance companies will make record profits is theoretical at this point-if there is any proof to your assertion it would be important to share it. I think it needs to be explored before it is shot down as a viable alternative.
People have a hard time with the spending issue all around. They love to have new stuff but never want to pay for it. People hate taxes but want water and waste disposal taken care of. People want good highways but hate tolls. We will never be able to control spending until we make the choice, what do we want the state to pay for through taxes and what do we want to pay for ourselfs. If you look at polls 85% of people don’t think congress does a good job, but they think thier sentator or congressmen do good jobs. Pork is only pork if it doesn’t go to you or your job.
Amen, Peter!
The insurance situation in this particular state is a prime example of good intentions run completely amok. Because doing business here means no one with any condition can be turned down, we’re down to one provider. Anthem. And Anthem dictates all terms, continually hikes premiums, and there’s literally no comeback on any claim turned down. There is no competition, so they know you have no alternative whatsoever if you want insurance.
The result is — as Anthem annually hikes rates — an ever increasing number of uninsured in the state, as private plans from Anthem are simply unaffordable by most. (Moreover, as many of the insured discover, because Anthem sets the rules, almost nothing is covered so, what’s the point of a family trying to make the premium?)
Its a perfect storm….we have an insurer sucking state residents dry, insured people finding they have poor to completely inadequate insurance when they do try to use it, a rapidly growing uninsured population, and a medical community slowly collapsing as they try to carry the load of those who can’t pay.
The one thing that is positive is that the situation is now so extreme, Anthem has so abused its position, and the hospitals are in such a sad state, that something will have to be done……
and if it isn’t, no one in the state will be insured in two to three years and we won’t have any hospitals left open. In short, while its truly admirable to try and prevent insurance companies from excluding those with pre-existing conditions, unless every state does it, those states that do are going to be punished for it. This is not a state that is wealthy enough to fight the insurance industry on its own. The people here can’t afford this…..
we would be far, far better off creating a high risk pool for those with pre-existing conditions, and opening up to other insurers.
Until Anthem gets some competition, our wallets are theirs. And, to be honest, I think that’s the way some of our legislators like it.
Again what are we going to cut to lower taxes? That is the big question. I think why hire a new town manager? We seem to be doing fine without one now. Make the town council do more to help the town employees. This saves money right of the top. The only other thing is either fire a full time worker or cut everybodys hours to part time, like 30 hours a week. It may make it harder to do town busniess but will save money. Nobody wants to tell people they are fired but somethings have to be done to cut cost, it is not just going to lower it self. This tax issue will only get worst as the state looks for money. They will probably increase sales taxes and other travel type taxes. Lower the amount they give to schools. You all know the tolls on the highway are going to go up. Even though they said the last time it was only going to go up to cover widening cost. Well guess taking care of that widening is costing even more then building it. As you want more from your government the more its going to cost you in the future. Bigger library more taxes, more roads more taxes, better downtown more taxes, and next will be we need a new central school again more taxes.
what can be cut?
1) put the town’s insurance contracts out for open bid >> everything from the liability to the employee health insurance. with regard to the employee insurance, cut back from the cadillac plan now in place to a toyota. why the employees’s have a better plan than 90% of the townspeople is a mystery, and, frankly, immoral. Competitively bid this all, and give the contract to the lowest bidder……no exceptions. the lowest bidder.
2) this winter, the town government will not be in complete disarray, so they will be able to strictly monitor the plowing situation. Even if, for some reason, they are in disarray, they need to take one person out of the fray and make them responsible. The town can not lose another 100K this winter due to disorganization and emotional distress.
3) put the church up for sale and take the loss. We can not afford to carry it empty for the three to five years it will take before we can afford even the designs to change it. It was a huge mistake. Sell it and get past it before it drains us dry.
4) Pro-actively address situations that have the potential to cost the town money. For instance, there are several situations around town where the town has delayed or ignored long standing grievances…..i know of two where the individuals involved are so fed up they are considering suing the town to force action. Simpy doing the job can avoid thousands in legal fees. Legal fees we can’t afford right now.
5) Start sitting in on school budget meetings and start imposing some sanity there. No more trucks for workers to take home and drive as private cars. No more computers for school board members. Clearly those folks see the money there as a private little money pot that can provide them with some nice extras. Well, we can’t afford it any more. Shut down the money pot.
The reality is, we are in a very serious economic downturn that is not going to resolve itsef any time soon. We face a year or more of belt tightening. Raising town taxes is not going to be an option as it WILL put people out of their homes.
We can make this easier to bear, if we take some proactive steps now. Or we can sit == on a respirator == trying to hold on to the church, trying to provide employees with the best health insurance bar none, and watch out neighbors go down in the effort.
I hope the new Council is made up of adults who can make some hard and realistic choices. Otherwise, we are going to be in for a very tough recession in this town.
Like I said if it is important to you it can’t be cut. For people who want a new library then this can not be just sold. For people who think the school needs more money, they will pay a higher tax for it. Some people can’t clean there sidewalk off. Those people will want the extra tax to help them there. To get all these people to agree to cut programs is going to be difficult. We can all go to all these meetings and should to help change programs, but if commitees can’t change the councils minds, good luck to the regular citizen trying. I always hear the pay per throw trash is good because people pay for thier use of the transfer station. We could do that everywhere. You use the library more you pay more, you use the school more then pay more, you use the town roads more you pay more. I bet everyone in town would think that is unfair. What can you do?
I’d like to throw out an idea that’s been knocking around in the back of my mind…it’s a bit off the subject, but this seems like a group that may know the answer.
Here are the facts as I see them-
1- The traditional investment market is in a shambles- personally I lost close to 1/3 of the value of the items I own.
2- The town of South Berwick needs to borrow money to meet it’s current obligations.
3- The interest from Municipal Bonds is non taxable under federal and state rules.
Here’s the question-
Instead of going to a bank or broker and paying whatever fee, could South Berwick offer bonds to it’s own citizens? It seems like a win/win…the town gets a better rate for it’s borrowing, the citizens get a safe tax free investment (that can be insured) and the rate of return could be pretty good compaired to the market.
Are there any lawyers/ brokers on the blog who know about this stuff?
Peter, what we have to do, which no one wants to do, is confront the reality that there is NO MORE MONEY to be had. Your response seems to indicate that you think that we would have to make cuts, but they are going to be tailored to whatever criteria this particular Council wants.
We aren’t going to have that luxury. This town is on a respirator financially.
To stay alive, we are going to have to see cuts in everything. Its not a question of believing a new library is important any more. We couldn’t afford to buy that building, now we have it >> we can’t afford the upkeep and we can’t afford the financing that was put in place. It has to go.
The school budgets have to be cut.
There is NO MORE MONEY. Moreover, we can not raise taxes without putting friends and neighbors out of their houses.
This is not optional. This is hard reality.
Anonymous,
Your exactly right! The sooner everyone wakes up to what’s coming the sooner we can move on this and the less hurtful it’s going to be. Make no mistake, it’s going to be bad and it’s going to hurt. We can’t look for ways to “trim” the budget. I’m afraid it has to be more drastic than that. To your list of 5 things you gave on the 8th I would add the following.
1) Scrap PAYT. It’s a tax increase and that’s the last thing we can afford right now.
2) Sell Town owned vacant land. Check the Town web site under Tax/Assessment Data, you’ll find that we own 500 acres of vacant land. (89 acres of that is the town forest). The Town should not be holding land for any purpose including conservation.
Eric
Eric,
I voted for you, but after reading your post, I’m glad you did not get elected. PAYT is wrong, I agree with that. But your attitude about long term resources (including conservation land), is very short sighted.
Just curious, why should the town own vacant land? Particularly land it has no plans for other than conservation? Just curious. I’m neither for or against particularly now as I don’t’ think we could sell it if we wanted to. Likewise the church, we are stuck with that white elephant and will be feeling some serious pain for that mistake during this downturn.
I am also against PAYT. First, I don’t think that those who think this is a good idea understand the depths this crises is going to take us to. People are losing their life savings now, and we’re just getting started. They aren’t going to have a spare five bucks around the house to give the town each week to throw out the trash.
So the trash is going to end up in vacant lots all around town and in the woods. Maybe even on the vacant land the town owns!!!
And then the town will end up spending more to clean up these fire hazards than they will make.
A shortsighted plan designed by the people in town who resent town money being spent on trash from the town’s very few businesses…… Here again, like the Church, five thousand people will pay to placate ten people angry than Angie’s dumps more trash than they do.
And wait and see….we’ll eventually have the Council want another tax increase to clean up the trash all over town.
No one on the Town Council seems to think thru the long term ramifications of anything they do. Everything is done with the next five minutes in mind.
You know, if you figure it out: hiring a curbside pick-up trash service at curbside is probably less expensive than buying bags all year, particularly if you have a family. Call the private services and check it out, and then estimate how many bags you will have to buy. It’s pretty close, or even cheaper NOT to pay for bags and shlep the transfer station for regular weekly garbage. And a time saver, too.
we’re getting curbside pick up and also we signed up for the bottle return over at the york hannaford. there’s no point is giving this town council more money to lose. particularly not our money. this is not a crowd that has a clue as to what’s going on or how to deal with it.
What do people think is going to happen as the state starts cutting back?? If the state reduces the amount of funding for schools, (just one example), the town is going to have to make up the difference. State taxes are going to rise, and the amount the town gets will be less. You think the town is having problems now??
i think the town council is completely unaware of the depth and breadth of the problems facing them. what’s more by refusing to confront them, they are only going to be far worse ultimately and hurt more people.
FED UP and Anonymous,
You’re energy spent here would be far more effectively spent at Town
Council and School Board meetings. That way maybe “the crowd” might
get the clue you’re sure they lack.
I don’t disagree with some of the things you’ve said, but you won’t make
much progress preeching to this choir. I bet that very few Council mem-
bers spend much time on this blog.
M. Gagnon I personally don’t look at people on this forum as not having a clue. In my last post I was just trying to bring up a point that to be quite honest I hadn’t thought too much about until taking with someone else a few days ago. As the state cuts back the current fiscal matters are going to be even more of an issue than they are now. This would seem to be a good point to make so we as a town can be proactive, rather than wait for the day the state check doesn’t come. Sorry if I offended anyone.
Actually, i have attempted to speak to Council members. Their depth of knowledge of financial matters is, well, scary to say the least. When I said higher taxes, due to the overall economic environment where we have some people hanging fingernails, will result in some people losing their homes, I was told, “Oh, that won’t happen here — people in New England aren’t really caught up in all this. And people in this town…..” So, it seemed talking about this ended up being taken as I was insulting the people of the town….
I also heard that it didn’t matter about the cost of the library because “the money was there”. Ah, yes, the fact that it was bond money, and that the interest to be paid on it might be a burden on the Town budget as things tighten up seemed to escape the Council member. “The money was there”, that was all that mattered.
So when you say, come to the Town Council meetings, speak to the Council, at some point, you realize it is an exercise in futility. They don’t want to know. If they pretend it really is okay maybe it will all just go away before they have to deal with it.
Unfortunately, that’s not going to happen.
I think Brian’s Municipal Bond question is fascinating. In response to our current financial situation, on both a macro and micro level, it is a positive investment scheme for our community. Bonds are a constructive ‘infrastructure’ financial instrument. Infrastructure is open to definition, but I would think a long term investment for the community would make sense. An example worthy of consideration is the library. Metaphorically, it houses imagination and new ways of thinking. Winning concepts. Thanks Brian for the stimulation; I hope this is explored deeply.
I’m also intrigued with the idea of S.B. Municipal Bonds. I don’t have any knowledge to offer about how it might happen, but it’s a great idea.
Mr. Pelchat, I think you should reconsider your words about town owned land. Public spaces like parks, recreation areas, playgrounds, libraries and meeting spaces are the fundamental assets of any community, and the planning and holding of space for future needs yet to be determined is a wise practice. How foolish it would be to sell these future assets while prices are depressed!
I have a problem with the town owning land on principal. I won’t list for you all of the things that I enjoy about open spaces – It’s irrelevent. The town should not own what it does. Let’s take the town forest off the table for this discussion. (That’s 88-1/2 acres) We still own 410 acres that’s vacant. This doesn’t include the day property which should be sold as well. The land we own varies from lots like the gully across from Cummings Mill to several large lots on York Woods Rd. When this land becomes the towns from non-payment of tax it should not be sat on or moved into conservation.
1) It should be offered first to abutting property owners. They can purchase it individually or as an entity.
2) It should be offered 2nd to conservation groups.
3) It should be offered 3rd to development.
This should be done even in a down market. In all 3 cases the land moves back to generating taxes. The purchase price may not be what we’d like but we need to look at that differently. Most of this land we got from non-payment of tax. Regardless what we sell it for we haven’t lost money. The town should not be in the conservation/real estate business, (or any other business for that matter), but should be run like a business.
This property should be looked at one at a time. We’ll have more of a debate over some pieces of property than others, but it’s a debate we should be having.
Eric Pelchat
Since the diner has no official authority but is an educational forum where citizens can present perceived problems and possible solutions, I suggest that those who reach the conclusion that ‘we just can’t do anything’ simply read and let others present ideas.
I offer that suggestion because many people are intimidated when their ideas are immediately negated. I am not one of those people.
We are in for tough times, financially. I do not believe that the towns should have to fill the gaps left by the fed and state in the upcoming school budget. I think we have to plan on that contingency, and also accept the reality of personal struggles that will be happening. That means that the school budget needs to be reduced from the beginning. SB’s budget should also be reduced. Reduction is very difficult, so I have proposed that they remain the same as they were last year, to start.
This applies to the PAYT concept, too. We are talking about a minimum of $52 a year to throw one bag of waste away per week. A large family would pay much more. For years we have been bombarded with the image of the elderly debating food or medicines. Where will garbage fit into that scene?
We just had a lovely fund-raiser to help our neighbors with their heating costs this winter. Great idea, great turn-out. Now, we turn around and hit them with additional costs to dispose of their waste.
PAYT was conceived as a plan to either encourage recycling or increase a revenue flow…I am not sure which or if it is both. I think neither is appropriate for the town to impose.
I believe in freedom and choice. Given information, people make decisions. Freedom results in different choices being made by individuals. Each of us thinks his choice was the best under the circumstances. Force is inappropriate in a free society.
Rather than using force, more education was required if there was non-compliance with the desires for recycling. Perhaps, the excessive time, storage facilities and effort required to comply with the methods employed at the transfer station have something to do with non-compliance. Perhaps it is simply a different conclusion drawn from the facts presented.
If compliance were the issue, only those who are not recycling should be effected by the new constraints. Those who comply should not pay more. But, everyone pays more.
If it is a revenue stream, then the Town Council should be honest and admit this is a tax increase. It does not matter which slot in the cash drawer accepts the payment! It is not a reduction in taxes if we are merely paying in a different place.
Genie
I hope that the diner can be a place where people can hear and consider other ideas. I firmly believe that the more ideas and information we all have, the better citizens we can be. None of us knows it all or has the answer (even though we all like to think so sometimes). I appreciate it when there is civil give and take at the diner and I think it helps people to think through the issues.
That said, here’s my take on the PAYT. I am one of the people who thinks the PAYT system makes sense. As I understand it, we were facing a problem:
–Tipping fees for waste disposal will continue to go up. I just read that New England is going to face a shortage of places to put landfill within five years.
–The cost to transport waste is going up with fuel costs, so the less waste South Berwick has to transport out of town the better for our bottom line.
–The town can recoup some of the costs for our municipal waste management system by selling recyclables on the commodities market.
–Not everyone is recycling all they could recycle. When that happens we lose in two ways; 1)we have to pay more for transport and tipping fees and 2)we lose the revenue we would get from selling the recyclables.
It seems to me that the PAYT system makes the municipal waste management system more like our water system. We pay taxes for the basic infrastructure and then we pay based on our consumption of the service. Like the water system, the waste management system is a public health issue. Improper waste disposal can result in health hazards and environmental clean up costs. As a taxpayer I am willing to pay taxes to make sure we have the basic infrastructure to handle the waste we generate as a community. But I also appreciate the PAYT program because it means that I can have some control over the total cost that I pay for waste disposal and I am not subsidizing those who choose not to recycle or who generate a lot of waste. This year we got a 17 cent reduction on our mil rate and will pay for our PAYT bags. By the time next year’s budget is ready to be voted on we will have a track record to assess how the PAYT program is working. I know if we didn’t do the PAYT program we would be paying more taxes now and could expect higher taxes in the future to support the current system so I’m willing to give it a try.
I think the PAYT program is not where we will end up. The waste management system in this country is unsustainable as it is but technology and knowledge are constantly evolving. How we deal with waste five years from now will be completely different that what we are doing now. I hope the Council and citizens will continue to learn about what the options are so we can be ready to do what is most environmentally and financially advantageous.
One other thing that makes sense to me about the PAYT system is that it puts us on the same system as North Berwick. This makes it more likely that we could collaborate with them in the future.
Eric, thanks for your response. You outline some good points I had not considered — so I will consider them.
I’m also appreciative of the last two posts about PAYT. When the tone of this forum is civil and not that of a Rant, it is a wonderful tool for all of us. Thank you, Molly.
Molly,
I understand what your saying but here’s the math for my home. (I realize it’s going to be different for everyone). The reduction of .17 per 1000 in my tax rate amounted to a savings of $31.21. My family of 5 produces 5 bags of trash a week. (Actually closer to 4 1/2 bags). We recycle. If I use the small bags it’s going to cost me $117.00 for 6 months. If I cram my regular bags into the large ones the same 6 months will cost me $58.50. This means that using the large bags is going to cost me $27.29 more than if they had raised my taxes .17. No matter how you slice it, that’s a tax increase. Except with PAYT they are telling me that they’ve done me a favor. For small households it may not be as bad. For some larger ones especially with young children, their screwed. What happens if the revenues aren’t enough? Will the bags get more expensive? If the revenues are more than enough will the cost of the bags go down? I’ve got concerns with the ordinances as well but I’ll have to wait and see how they changed.
A better alternative is to go single stream. We’ll get less money for our recyclables but there will be a net savings due to lower labor and equipment costs. Let’s do that first and then determine if we even need PAYT.
Eric
Single stream would also allow a reconfiguration of the transfer station, which frankly, is an accident waiting to happen. One child clipped walking thru the chaos of the cars could take this town down in a heartbeat.
Again, I have suggested to Town Council members that we offer System Operations classes at UNH or UMaine the opportunity to redesign for better traffic flow. We would get a new design for free, lower the possibility of fender benders & maiming someone……
again, no one wanted to hear anything about it. Too much trouble, and besides the head of the Transfer Station just redid everything a few months back.
My Bond question got a response from our current town manager. She thought that the bond for St Micheals had already been purchased, but she was going to investigate if there could be the opportunity for direct community invest by the citizens in the future. Apparently, floating a bond is more complicated then I thought.
A couple months ago I posted about South Berwick creating it’s own micro-economy. Crazy, I know, but other communities (Ithica, NY) have been doing it for years. I would much rather give my labor to the town then pay taxes. As of January 1st we’ll already have our own currency…How do other people feel about volunteering for an hour (picking up roaside trash, working at the Library, shoveling snow, cleaning a community center, etc.) in exchange for PAYT bags?
Our family would be willing.
Brian – I have heard about micro-economy projects and you are right the PAYT bags are a good currency to ‘earn’ in exchange for work.
Re: single stream towns that do it well make money but it is not as simple as deciding to ‘just do it’.
Our hybrid PAYT mixed with dual stream on tap for January is not ideal but it gives me some control of what I pay to toss and what I recycle or compost. However, one concern I have with dual stream PAYT is that the fee is per bag and not weight so if a person choosees to not recycle then they can just pay to toss another bag or stuff their big bag full of paper plastic etc. – for some folks the extra $$ is worth not dealing with recycling. This is a problem on several levels 1) more trash to deal with and dispose of for the town 2) reduced revenue for the recycled material that we do sell.
Not everyone cares about recycling and the environment but lots of us do, so the system that we need would make it easy for the masses to comply with best practices in recycling combined with cost / price sensitivity. (dare to dream)
So if that solution is single stream PAYT then that would be a big increase to my family because we already recycle and compost everything…
There is lots of great discussion on this site and lots of opinions on all sides of the issues. Thanks Molly