FALSE AND MISLEADING CLAIMS REBUTTED -- PART 2

SOME OFFICIALS CLAIM THAT THE ACTON VOTERS GROUP IS MOTIVATED BY A FEW INDIVIDUALS WHO FEEL WRONGED AND WHO COULDN'T GET THEIR WAY AT TOWN MEETING, SO THEY ARE CALLING FOR ANOTHER MEETING. True?

FALSE! The Special Town Meeting was called by 1,500 Town Meeting members who signed a petition. Falsely questioning the motivations of some of Acton Voters Group leaders is unfortunate and wrong. We should try to stick to the issues of this debate rather than attacking people's motivation, which no one can know. Acton Voters Group board members have long been active in all of the issues that have been raised.

SOME OFFICIALS CLAIM THAT REDUCING RESERVES COULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT ACTON'S BOND RATING, THUS INCREASING OUR BORROWING COSTS. True?

FALSE! Bond ratings take into account the ability for an entity to repay the bonds. Acton's debt burden and levy capacity make Acton an excellent credit risk. If Acton Voters Group is successful, our reserves will be above the Dept. of Revenue's guidelines for a healthy bond rating. In contrast, our opponents will spend reserves from $8 million to $1.4 million. In three years, the reserve level under the ALG Plan would be about $5 million LESS than the reserve level under the Acton Voters Group projection. We are puzzled that our opponents would even raise this issue as it seems to point out one of the greatest weaknesses and inconsistencies of their Plan.

SOME CLAIM THAT THE TOWN LEADERSHIP PLAN IS AN EXAMPLE OF "PRUDENT, CAREFUL DECISION MAKING." True?

FALSE! It appears to be an example of decision-making, but we would not use the adjectives prudent or careful to describe the 3-year plan that Acton town officials have printed in the warrant.

SOME OPPONENTS CLAIM THAT THE ACTON VOTERS GROUP PLAN "DISCARDS THE THREE-YEAR PLAN" CRAFTED BY THE TOWN BUDGET PROCESS. True?

FALSE! The Acton Voters Group took the same plan and made two simple changes: we use $2.4 million of reserves this fiscal year to offset a planned tax increase, and we set a limit on growing operational budgets at 4% instead of 6%. All the other numbers are the same, or follow logically from that change (like reserves are not being spent on operations.)

SOME OPPONENTS CONTINUE TO CLAIM THAT THE TOWN OFFICIAL'S ALG PLAN "PRESERVES THE RESERVES" YET THE ACTON VOTERS GROUP PLAN IS THE ONLY PLAN THAT APPEARS TO ACCOMPLISH THAT GOAL. WHY DO THE OPPONENTS CONTINUE TO MAKE THAT CLAIM?

NO IDEA! You will have to ask them. They keep talking about the need for reserves for all sorts of purposes, but their plan on page 10 of the warrant spends the reserves down from $8 million to $1.4 million in just three years. If a healthy reserve is necessary for a good bond rating, how does their plan accomplish that? If a healthy reserve is needed for emergencies, how does their plan accomplish that? If comparable towns have higher reserves than Acton, why does their plan call for reserves to be spent down so much? If the DOR says not to spend reserves on recurring operations, why does their plan do so? We have been asking them these questions at various forums, on our website, and elsewhere, and we still have not heard answers that make sense. Maybe they will have an answer by the October 2 Town Meeting.

OPPONENTS CLAIM THAT OTHER TOWNS HAVE HIGHER RESERVES SO ACTON SHOULD HOLD ONTO THEIR RESERVES. True?

FALSE! There are hundreds of towns in Massachusetts and each town should develop its own reserve policy, according to the DOR

Acton town officials have repeatedly declined to create a reserve policy.

Such a policy, if enacted, might encourage voters to place reserves into a Stabilization fund, dedicated to a capital project. Many of our comparable towns have such a fund. Acton taxpayers should not be asked to retain excess reserves in Free Cash when the town's history is to spend them on operating expenses. And spending reserves inappropriately is exactly what is shown in the town's plan on page 10 of the warrant. So we have a history of misuse of reserves and we have a plan that will repeat that misuse. The conclusion is that it is in the taxpayers best interest to have these funds returned. Should town officials wish to ask for them back in the future, there is a process to do so, and Acton voters and taxpayers will be given a choice.

Should the taxpayers wish to support a future capital project, the town is free to ask, and there have been dozens of worthwhile and well-documented capital projects approved by Town Meeting or the voters.

OPPONENTS CLAIM THAT THE ACTON VOTERS GROUP PROPOSAL WOULD "NOT ACCOMPLISH THIS GOAL" OF HELPING SENIORS OR THOSE ON FIXED INCOME WITH TAX RELIEF. True?

UTTERLY FALSE! We aren't sure how they can make that claim, but it is simply untrue. Property taxes will remain flat instead of going up 4.1% this year. That would affect every property tax payer equally, relative to the size of their tax bill.

OPPONENTS CLAIM THAT THE DOR DOES NOT HAVE A SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION ON RESERVE LEVELS. THEY SAY THAT " In fact, DoR has no firm stated policy about reserve percentages." True?

FALSE! We have quoted several places on the DOR website that recommend specific reserve percentages, as well as other DOR recommendations that town officials have ignored. (CLICK HERE). Why are our town officials ignoring these professional recommendations from state regulators?

OPPONENTS CLAIM THAT ACTON VOTERS GROUP "TRUE MOTIVATIONS" HAVE NOW BEEN REVEALED IN THE WARRANT. True?

TRUE! We believe in balanced budgets, not using reserves to fund recurring operations, not allowing deficit spending, more responsible and affordable budget growth, and less reliance on overrides. Furthermore, our motivation is to maintain town and school services as efficiently as possible, and at the lowest cost to the taxpayers.

OPPONENTS CLAIM THAT "...the AVG budgets [are] impossible to implement without serious cuts in service levels and significant layoffs." True?

FALSE! Layoffs should be the last resort to cutting expenses. We have discussed a dozen or more ideas for reducing costs, increasing revenues, eliminating inefficiencies, and lowering the growth of spending. The Acton Voters Group has NOT recommended "cuts" in budgets, but instead has recommended slower budget growth. Budgets will grow 4% a year under our proposal rather than 6% a year under theirs.

But our opponents have completely ignored our answers to their questions and misstatements. We have listened carefully to their questions and are happy to answer them. When will they address our concerns, if ever?

We can only conclude that our opponents would rather try to confuse and scare voters into supporting town officials than engaging in meaningful debate about the issues. And town officials seem to be playing by the same rules. If you have watched any of the presentations made by the Acton Voters Group to town boards, you will see that members seem disinterested, ready to pick a fight, not at all open to taxpayer concerns, and have their minds made up even before we speak.

OPPONENTS CLAIM THAT THE ACTON VOTERS GROUP PROPOSAL WILL RESULT IN "long term pain of cuts in services and teachers". True?

FALSE! There are many choices that Acton town officials will have to make over the coming months as they develop budgets for next fiscal year. We are a long way from knowing how those budgets will look. But we are convinced that we can't continue to increase budgets beyond our ability to afford them, based on expected revenue.

Our leaders plan on increasing budgets beyond affordability (producing budgets that are not balanced), financed by using reserves, and then asking taxpayers to vote for a large override.

This coercive strategy is not a fiscally responsible way to plan for the future. It relies on a high-risk strategy that is extremely divisive (as we saw three years ago). There will be no real winners after such a battle.

Instead, we advocate working together to develop affordable budgets with reasonable increases in spending that do not require deficit spending or overrides.

Should our town officials become convinced that an override is the only way to truly balance the budget, then they are welcomed to take that case to the taxpayers. But they should only do so without having used the reserves to finance a growing deficit.

OPPONENTS CLAIM THAT THE ACTON VOTERS GROUP PLAN WILL HASTEN AN OVERRIDE. True?

FALSE! The Acton Voters Group plan anticipates reducing the growth of budgets so that general overrides will not be needed in the forseeable future. The ALG Plan clearly shows an override in three years. Why haven't our town officials made their plans clear to the voters, either at the last Town Meeting or during this present debate? Could we say that their lack of transparency says a lot about what their plans may really be?

WE HAVE HEARD THAT THE ACTON VOTERS GROUP PLAN WILL RESULT IN 70 LAYOFFS. True?

FALSE! Maybe this simple example will explain it. This year, budgets went up about 6.6%. Next year, according to the ALG Plan, they are scheduled to go up about 6.3%. This year, we hired about 30 new FTEs (full-time employees), with an average salary and benefit package of $63,000 each.

10 FTEs would represent a little less than 1% of the budget. So 30 people is about 3% of the budget.

So if this year's budget went up 6.6%, and we took out the 30 people we hired, we would be down to a budget growth of 3.6%.

What we did this year will not be changed, but this simple exercise shows that budgets can grow by more modest levels and still be balanced to available revenues. But if budgets are allowed to grow over 4% per year, they can only be funded through using reserves and that will eventually cause a general override of Prop 2 1/2.

This simple example may not entirely work when you get down to details. But this is just one way of cutting costs. We have offered several others, none of which require layoffs. Instituting a hiring freeze. Not replacing workers who leave right away. Reducing salary and benefit increases for employees (all union contracts are being negotiated this year and next year). Looking for ways to cut waste and inefficiency (last done 10 years ago!) Stop spending budget surpluses without Town Meeting approval. Stop purchasing "nice to have" items and concentrate on high priority items only. And there is more.

Why do you think our opponents immediately say there will be layoffs whenever anyone talks about reducing the growth of budgets to a reasonable level?

False Claims Rebutted, Part 1.