The Wrentham Times

Letter to the Editor: Against Rezoning Madison St

By Chuck Woodhams, Madison St., Wrentham

Well, it’s time again for our regularly scheduled battle against rezoning on Madison St. It’s almost something you can set your calendar to. Some of the actors may have changed but the story line is still the same. The difference between this battle and those in the past is…actually, there really is no difference.

We have an outside developer (as opposed to the landowner) who wants to maximize built-out of a property by convincing the town that rezoning is a good move for the town. Whereas in the past he had no real plan and no tenants who were committed to move in this time around he has…a sketch, one showing something that might go in, but then again it might not (and still no firm list of committed tenants.) He also has a preliminary traffic plan, one that has not been reviewed by the state and therefore is not really worthy of consideration as a factor in the decision making. It’s just too open-ended and subject to scrutiny and change by the state.

Read the entire Letter to the Editor submitted by Madison St. resident Chuck Woodhams by clicking here.

Letter to the Editor: Vote "NO" on the Rezoning of Madison Street

By Melissa Rodriguez

Unlike many of my neighbors, I have only been a Wrentham resident since 2007 when I purchased my first home. I grew up in a small nearby suburban town and attended a local college situated not far from the thick forests of yet another MA suburb. Years later, I made the move to the hustle, bustle and bright lights of the big city for close to a decade. But what was once considered exciting, fun and “chic”, personally, now only seemed loud, stressful and tiresome to me. I longed to get back to my roots of white picket fences and green lawns vs. brick walls and asphalt, sporadic street lights vs. the glare of neon signs and the sounds of nature, not traffic. I was trading in my city days for the overall slower pace I once knew and took for granted.

When I told friends and family I was considering a move to Wrentham, the only images that came to mind were the Wrentham Premium Outlets and eventually, politician Scott Brown. I explained how much more this Norman Rockwell-ish community had to offer; right down to its gazebo centered town common and its quaint “mom and pop” style storefronts that lined the sidewalks. I had finally found my own tiny piece of “Mayberry” without having to move to the “sticks”. Working in the city, I make a 2 hour daily roundtrip commute and the drive is all the worthwhile when I arrive home and I can look up at a clear sky and still see the stars or hear the birds outside my windows in the morning. This was the lifestyle I signed up for, unbeknownst to me, one that lay threatened due to proposed re-zoning issues that lay ahead.

 

Read the entire Letter to the Editor submitted by Madison St. resident Melissa Rodriguez by clicking here.

Letter to the Editor: Vote "NO" on Rezoning

I moved to Wrentham with my two boys in 2004 when they were in first and second grade. It took all the money I had to make the down payment on our townhouse. I cried for a week when we arrived. I didn’t know anyone who lived here, and it was after a long and drawn out divorce. Wrentham had what we needed—good schools, a great reputation, and a safe place for the boy’s to grow up. 

Being at the end of Madison Street, we are close to Route One and 495. Easy access to the highway has made the long commute to work a little more bearable. Even though we’re close to the highway, we’ve been able to enjoy the calm, peaceful Wrentham life we all love. The state forest is right out our back door. After Christopher caught his first bullfrog and we were on our way back to the house, Jack asked me, “Mom, are we going to move again?”

“No, buddy, I have no plans to,” I answered.

Read the entire Letter to the Editor submitted by Madison St. resident Amy O'Brien by clicking here.

.

KP Band Takes "Best Overall Effect in Performance" at Nationals

By Christopher Roman

Starting back in May, KP High and Middle school 8th through 12th grade students started rehearsing as the King Philip High School Marching Band. Since then they have dedicated themselves; living, breathing, and dreaming marching band routines.

More than most sports teams, they put in hundreds of hours practicing together on the asphalt of the KP parking lot (they can't use the football fields, but that's another story), spent a week at band camp in Maine sweating like they've never sweated before, and performed at 9 weeks of competitions learning what it means to entertain under the intense scrutiny of judges. You see competing in a marching band requires a level of perfection that only can be truly understood by those who live it. With 100+ members, everyone must be perfect.   One step out of place, one missed note, or a misaligned flag and it's all over.

Last week, despite the struggles of a town wide power outage and certain distraction, The Pride and Passion of Wrentham, Norfolk, and Plainville went to Bridgeport, CT, met with perfection, and took first place the New England finals of the USSBA marching band competition.

For Seniors, Nationals was one last chance to put on the uniform. One last chance to strive for perfection.

Off to Annapolis, Maryland they went, to the home of the United States Naval Academy and the US National USSBA finals, with 20 other marching bands in their division. The morning started with the typical 3 hour practice on a field far from home. Then some lunch and they loaded up the busses to head off to the stadium to unload the props and another hour of warm up.  Then it was time.   They marched down to the field and waited patiently as the proceeding band finished their show.  Onto the field they went, setting up the props, the pit, and one last warm up.

Are the judges ready? Yes.

Is the band ready? The drum majors salute and it's a go to take the field in competition.

As they came on the field the crowd came to life. First heard was the pit, with mallets in hand starting a rhythmic sequence, then the brass and woodwinds joined in, all while the color guard literally painted a picture of this year's theme, "The Gallery." The energy grew, the band wailed, and they came to the end of their first movement and the crowd, from all over the country was awestruck, cheers coming from all corners of the stadium. Then the second movement started with a theme of pottery, a trumpet solo was heard, and the rise of energy continued, and by the end of the second movement the crowd was going crazy, but KP was only just getting started! The next movement took us to Maradi Gras, as we were entertained by a typical New Orleans jazz quartet, then the band started dancing and playing and everyone was having a spectacular time. More cheers, and some thought it might be over, but then came the finale. The intensity grew again, and just when you may have thought there was no more to give, the band took it up one last notch, blowing away the national team of judges and the crowd. First we heard a sweet horn solo, then the band joined in and moved at an intense speed, all while the color guard danced and played the role of ancient Grecian goddesses. The 10 minute show ended with a dynamic shift from the high level of driving intensity, to a highly controlled fade into the distance as our goddesses turned to stone statues, and for at least 5 seconds you could hear a pin drop until the drum majors turned and saluted that it was over. Thousands of spectators who had never seen the show before cheered wildly and everyone knew the King Philip Marching Band had just delivered the performance of a lifetime.

Then came the waiting, as the rest of the bands competed, giving it their all in turn.   Four hours later, at 9:00 pm the scores were finally delivered. There were a lot of good bands there, considering these were the US finals we really didn't know what to expect as scores were read.  Starting with 20, they counted them down, down, down, until there were 3, and then 2. But then there it was, with a score of 96.875 and taking the top award for Best Overall Effect in Performance, the King Philip Regional Marching Band. They missed the top score by a mere 6 one hundredths of a point at 96.938.    KP can hold their heads high, as they gave it all they had, and gave the crowd and themselves a show to remember forever. Congratulations to The Pride and Passion from Wrentham, Norfolk and Plainville Massachusetts, the King Philip Marching Band!

Click to see more pictures from the USSBA National Championship.

 

A Letter from Finance Committee Chair About Town Meeting

Dear Wrentham Neighbors,

The process of finalizing the Town of Wrentham operating budget for FY 2012 is nearing completion. The only thing left to do is for our voters to review and discuss the Finance Committee’s recommendations and take the vote at Town Meeting on Monday, 13 June. Town Meeting will be in the KP High School auditorium starting at 7:30. As chair of the FINCOM, I had hoped to get this final information article out a couple of days ago via our usual collaborative committee effort. But an out of town business requirement upset those plans. Even so, there are a couple of key information points to be made, and it’s a rainy Saturday afternoon, so those points will be made in the first person narrative.

The warrant for Monday night is relatively short. There are just eight articles to be moved. All of them will be moved by the Finance Committee. Six of the articles are fairly routine annual requirements such as setting the salaries of elected officials and renewing revolving accounts. The primary focus will be on Article 3 which is the budget that will go into effect on 1 July. The Finance Committee’s recommendations, to include the budget numbers to be voted on are in our draft report currently posted on Wrentham’s web site.

The basic numbers regarding our recommendations are in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1

 

A few key points regarding this budget: 

• As shown in the figure, the change in the operating budget is 1.22% and is the smallest in the past 10 years (and possibly the smallest going back to the adoption of Prop 2 ½ in 1982).  The primary reason that it has an increase at all is due to an 8.3% increase in insurance and benefits.  Without that, the rest of the budget is 0.45% below this year’s current budget.  (I know that most would say such a small increase is a good thing.  But the reality is that the Town has to make cuts to operational services stay within this rate of growth.)
• The budget reflects the outcome of the debt exclusion vote.  Despite numerous insinuations, the debt exclusion was not a shell game.  In our previous article we described what would be cut if the exclusion did not pass.    There are no changes to what we previously described.  The specifics can be found in Table B-1 of our report and are highlighted in Figure 2 below.  As shown in Figure 2, there are significant cuts required even with a 1.22% growth.
• To balance this budget, the Finance Committee is recommending using the entire remainder of our Free Cash, a total of $245,245.  We are painfully aware that this is contrary to best practices.  As we previously wrote, if the debt exclusion passed we were intending to carry this amount over to the next fiscal year in order to address important capital requirements.  Alas, this will not be.  But to not use it would mean that the cuts depicted in Figure 2 would be increased by another $245,245. 

Based on the occurrences of the past two years, we are expecting that there will be amendments made on the floor of Town Meeting to our recommended budget.  So I offer a couple of key points in that regard: 

• Any amendment made to add funding to a specific budget line requires that the motion include the source of funding.
• As just mentioned, there will be no Free Cash available to use as a funding source towards an amendment.
• If Stabilization is to be proposed as a funding source, it requires a two thirds approval.  I will not have the final numbers regarding Stabilization until Monday morning.  My expectation is that it will be in the neighborhood of $100,000 above our threshold of 5%.  I will personally strongly advocate against using any of this.  As we will be going into a budget that will have significant challenges in execution, one that has no Free Cash being carried over, and one that will also have $350,000 less Free Cash than this current year (as that was contributed by a onetime sale of tax property), I believe it would be very short sighted and risky to add to our challenges by reducing Stabilization.
• The only other option is to take funding from one budget line in order to add to another.  I am aware of at least one potential amendment that may propose this.  The key caution here is that the state of this budget would require that any line that is reduced now would almost certainly need to be reimbursed at the November Special Town Meeting.  The most likely source at that time would be Free Cash.  Because we are using all of this year’s Free Cash and we will not have a bump up from the sale of tax property, once the books are closed on FY11 next year’s Free Cash will likely be in the neighborhood of $700,000 (or about $400,000 less than this year).  For this current year we used $331,000 just for Snow and Ice.  So using this option doesn’t necessarily solve anything.  More importantly, it has the potential of making things worse.

One final note – during the run up to the debt exclusion vote the Finance Committee and the Board of Selectmen continuously stressed that the exclusion was not a singular, long term solution to our challenges.  Rather, it was to be the first step to a long term strategy to meet our financial challenges.  The outcome of the vote doesn’t change that.  In fact, it makes it even more imperative that the Town quickly develops and implements such a strategy.  I believe this strategy needs to provide a three pronged approach that addresses economic development and revenue planning, modernized business practices (shared services, consolidations, improved processes), and compensation policies that integrate fiscal realities with operational objectives.

Stay tuned.  And even though the Bruins are playing Monday night, please come to Town Meeting. 

Figure 2

 Jerry McGovern

Chair, Finance Committee

 

Letter to the Editor: Debt Exclusion Aftermath

From Ed Goddard, Wrentham

I wish to thank the many volunteers and supporters of the failed Debt Exclusion ballot question. The results were disappointing to those concerned about our elementary education system, Town services, and to our property values. In the end, Town residents spoke clearly that they are willing to receive reduced Town services across the board in lieu of incurring additional taxes. I disagree with that approach in this instance but it certainly is not one without merit.

As Chairman of the Wrentham Elementary School Committee, I want to assure all Town residents that the Schools will continue to use our best efforts to provide our children with an excellent education. The disappointment emanating from last week’s vote does not relieve us from this obligation nor will it dampen the spirit of our Administrators and educators in this regard. We remain committed to the kids and our community. This commitment remains an immutable hallmark of the Wrentham Public Schools.

In lieu of the Debt Exclusion failure, I will work with the School Committee to review all available funding sources, which almost certainly will include new and increased fees in several areas. If these fees are implemented, they too will be disappointing to the affected parents but, as we will show, these are the same types of fees charged by surrounding communities. Regrettably, nothing is free anymore.

Please keep informed and involved as we continue to work together to provide the best education and Town services possible with the dwindling resources available for use.

Ed Goddard Chair, Wrentham Elementary School Committee

Letter to the Editor: Vote Yes on June 4, 2011

from Bob Cohen, Wrentham

Today, June 4, 2011, the people of Wrentham have an opportunity to vote on a financial measure that will provide the necessary funds to operate the schools, public safety, and other municipal departments at the current level of service. 

Having served as a Selectman for the last three years, I have participated in developing the last three budgets and have observed first hand the objective effects of steadily declining revenue and shrinking resources.

School and municipal staff have risen to the occasion with dedication and financial concessions.  They have shown an exemplary respect for our money and have gone above and beyond the call of duty to serve the public and preserve the quality of our children’s education, public safety, and our other services.

Hard work and dedication only go so far. The Elementary school has already cut Spanish and General Music. Gym and Art have been reduced to half-year courses. On the chopping block for this year are busses within two miles of the school, the Instrumental Music program, Art, Gym, Computer Classes, smaller class size, and many other services.  Some might argue that providing the three “Rs” will be enough.  It won’t be. The world our kids are inheriting is different from the one in which we grew up.

The Police and fire departments have been understaffed for years. Town meeting finally understood the operational necessity for adding new officers and fire fighters.

There’s no one to turn to except each other to fix our situation.  Regardless of whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, a Conservative or a Liberal, a Townie or a Transplant, a senior household or a young family, the common ground we share is that we agree it is in everyone’s best interest to pool our money and entrust our local government to provide us with the necessary services—especially since we are governed by direct democracy. The essence of that social contract is that we share the costs in good times and bad, regardless of whether we benefit from each and every service.

What will you see in the mirror at the end of the day on June 4th?  Vote Yes and you will see a person who embraced his or her role as a responsible citizen of Wrentham.

Letter to the Editor: Why a 'YES' Vote on June 4th is Wrentham’s Only Option

From Deirdre Foley, Wrentham

I would like to thank Mr. John Zizza, the former selectman, for calling attention to the June 4^th debt exclusion vote.  The flashy red signs claiming the town is seeking a 7% tax increase have generated questions, opening a healthy debate regarding Wrentham’s financial issues.

I have lived in Wrentham for almost 12 years and have witnessed the propaganda and half truths some feel comfortable telling.  It has been frustrating.  The 7% signs in town are once again that of propaganda.  Our taxes go up every year because of Proposition 2 ½.  What this means is the total pool of real estate tax revenue is capped at 2.5% and can only go up that much every year.  The point is Wrentham has been working within its budget.  However, this has become increasingly more difficult.  Property tax is Wrentham’s primary source of income.  Specifically, Wrentham has faced a $2.3 million decrease in new growth, state aid, and local receipts since a peak in 2009.  These sources of revenue are projected to decline further while the cost of running our town is increasing.  Wrentham needs an increase in revenue to maintain services that have been hammered with cuts for three years straight.

On June 4^th, we are voting on a temporary 4.1% increase which will decrease each year until the debt is paid off in 2019.  Where the signs come in is they are adding the usual 2.5% plus 4.1% coming up with 6.7% and from there simply rounding up.  So if people vote no and think that action is saving 7%, they are misinformed.

The debt exclusion vote is by far the cheapest way for Wrentham to maintain services.  The proposed plan will add less than $20 a month based on the average priced home in Wrentham which is approximately $400,000.  The $20 a month goes down year after year until the debt is paid off in 2019.  Businesses will be paying as well.  This means the Wrentham Outlets will have to pay additional real estate taxes also.  If you use any level of services from the town, be it the schools, buses, senior center, senior transportation, police, ambulance, recreational fields, the pay as you go fee will be applied if the vote does not pass will far exceed the proposed plan and will likely be permanent.  We cannot afford not to pass this vote. 

The $244,500 for {Wrentham Public Schools] will allow the school system to maintain services.  The WPS has been financially cut for many years.  Each year, WPS superintendent, Dr. Jeffery Marsden, has met with Wrentham’s Board of Selectmen and Finance Committee detailing his predictions if his budget was not met.  Dr. Marsden has never made false predictions to produce fear as some would like to lead voters to believe.  His predictions have simply been the reality of our schools financial situation.  His prediction if this vote does not pass and, therefore, the current level of services are not maintained is there will be elimination or an out of pocket fee of some bus service, elimination of health, music and/or library, and at least one classroom teacher.  This is on top of the cuts WPS has already suffered.  WPS has been forced to eliminate 31 positions in 3 years resulting in increased class size, eliminated programs and reduced level of services for Wrentham’s children.  Now we are facing the reality of more cuts or making the choice to maintain our current level of service.  There is literally nowhere else to cut in the WPS’s budget.  We have 24 kids in our classrooms, special education teachers with caseloads of 33 children compared to our neighboring communities of 14-16 children caseloads.  WPS spends $2,000 less per pupil than our neighboring communities.  With 397 schools reporting in, Wrentham is in the bottom 3% in the entire state.  Some would lead you to believe, that given our competitive MCAS scores WPS is more efficient with their spending.  Is that to say 97% of the schools spend recklessly?  Really?  It has been repeated by the "no" vote that the schools should simply cut the teacher aides.  The teacher aides are special education teachers.  Why the repeated calls to cut the very teachers that help the students with unique needs?  We need to start listening to the educational experts in charge who know the true needs of our school.  The opposition knows nothing of those needs.  If this vote does not pass, we will see less educational services for our children.  How will MCAS scores be maintained?  This is outrageous.

Other services will also be affected. To read the entire letter click here. 

 

Letter to the Editor: "Why I Support Wrentham's Debt Exclusion"

From Edward Goddard, Wrentham, MA

I have served Wrentham residents as a Member of the Wrentham School Committee, Board of Selectman and now as Chair of the Wrentham School Committee. I will stand toe-to-toe with any other public servant on my record of fiscal conservatism. For example, I spearheaded negotiations to increase Town employee medical premiums from 10% to 25%, worked to stop the practice of water using receiving rebates on their bills because of broken sprinklers, and insisted that Town-owned property be sold at fair-market value after the Town took ownership. I hope these and similar actions have earned me a reputation as a fiscal conservative with public funds.

Against this background, however, I am compelled this year to support the Debt Exclusion on the Saturday, June 4th ballot. Here are my reasons.

The Town and Elementary Schools need the money to provide an acceptable level of services. This is not an issue of mismanagement.

Former Selectman Zizza and present Selectman LeClair have stated that they are against the proposed Debt Exclusion because the Town (and the School) mismanage their budgets. I challenge that statement as inaccurate and call upon those opposing the Debt Exclusion to cease using Town employees as whipping boys for political purposes. The facts tell a different story: more than 31 positions lost in the Wrentham Schools during the past few years and unprecedented belt-tightening strategies employed across all Town departments. Despite Mr. Zizza and Mr. LeClair’s allegations, Town employees have worked hard during the past few years to be part of the solution. As noted, all Town and School employees now pay 25% of the cost of their medical insurance, up from 10% a few years ago. And many Town and School employees either agreed to or were given 0% increases in the past few years. Quite simply, it is factually inaccurate and mean-spirited to blame our difficult economic times on Town and School employees, many of whom are our neighbors and friends.

The real issue here is that State Aid has actually decreased year over year to the Town while our costs, particularly medical insurance, have continued to increase. For example, State Aid was in FY 2008 was 5.373,834 and 4 years later for FY 2011 will be only 4,890,939. While state Aid has declined, Wrentham (like the rest of the cities and tonws) has been saddled with rising medical insurance claims and virtually no new growth income. Again, simply put, the 2.5% annual tax increase on property owners has not been able to offset the increasing medical insurance and declining State Aid. To make matters worse, Wrentham chose a decade or so ago to place most of its capital debt inside the levy limit, meaning that we have to pay the principal and interest on things like the Town Hall and Public Safety building from operating funds instead a special assessments. Wrentham has only 17% of its capital bonding inside the levy limit, whereas most similar communities have upwards of 65% or even 70% of its debt limit outside the levy limit. At its core, the proposed Debt Exclusion is an attempt to remedy what in hindsight was a mistake made when the decisions were made to leave these capital bond obligations inside the levy limit. Of course, the Debt Exclusion could not come at a worse time.

The Debt Exclusion Opponents Should Be More Factual In Other Assertions As well

Negative emails, signs, accusations and the usual hyperbole are already circulating among our residents relating to the Debt Exclusion. Regrettably, this has become typical rather than atypical in Wrentham. I call on those opposing the Debt Exclusion to make their arguments based on facts and to stop shading the truth. For example, the Debt Exclusion will be approximately a 4% increase (on average) for the next 7-8 years – not the 7% locals signs suggest (they get this by adding the 2.5% that taxes go up every year and will do so again even if the Debt Exclusion fails). Instead of using these marketing gimmicks and attack ads, we should instead acknowledge that these tight times have been created by forces larger than Wrentham, our residents and our elected officials. Let us as sensible adults stick to the real and only issue: Does a majority of Wrentham residents want to add to their tax burden (average being about $175-$200) for the next 7-8 years to prevent an accelerating decrease in our Schools, Public Safety and other Town service?

I acknowledge that on this issue reasonable and good people will differ. Several close friends have already told me that they will not support the Debt Exclusion. While I disagree on the merits, I respect their opinions and understand that now is a difficult time to ask residents for additional resources. I believe, however, that we have cut to the bone and I am willing to pay the extra amounts to maintain our already-depleted Town services and to protect my property values in the process. And make no mistake: if our Schools decline so will our property values, and this will cost us all a lot more than the Debt Exclusion.

Recently, the School Committee directed the Superintendent to inform the parents of more than 400 children who live within 2 miles of the Schools that they may not have bus service next year if the schools do not receive additional funding. This is not a scare tactic as some have opined – it’s a reality and one fraught with many perils. Can you imagine what these parents would say if the buses are taken away and they were not informed that this could happen prior to the June 4th vote? But this is where things stand today. However, if the Debt Exclusion passes and/or if Fincom and Town Meeting on June 13th take resources from other Town Departments to give to the Schools, the Committee will revisit all of our options and determine if bus service (almost certainly with a fee absent passage of a Debt Exclusion) remains feasible. We will not know where we are until after June 13th Town Meeting when the budget is voted.

One final point. Regardless of the Wrentham Schools’ ultimate FY12 budget, rest assured that on June 14th every teacher, Administrators, Aide and Custodian will roll up his/her sleeves and immediately get back to work with a redoubled effort to provide our children with the best education possible with the resources available. Our parents and children deserve no less.

Edward Goddard is the chair of Wrentham Elementary Schools Committee and former chair, Wrentham Board of Selectmen

Letter to the Editor: "Why I am Voting 'No' on June 4"

from Marc Fandetti, Wrentham

Regrettably, I will be voting no on June 4. Here's why.

In the decade or so leading up to the financial crunch of 2008, property values in many U.S. cities and towns doubled, and in some places values grew even faster. During that same period, Town spending (here and elsewhere) grew dramatically.

In just the past 10 fiscal years (2002-2012), Wrentham’s budget has increased from $21 million to just over $34 million – a 5% growth rate, more than double the annual increase in inflation of 2.25%. If Wrentham’s spending had instead kept pace with inflation, its budget would be just over $26 million, not $34 million, for the upcoming (2012) fiscal year.

Said differently, during a period of time during which average incomes in Wrentham and elsewhere have barely budged, real Town spending, that is, spending in excess of inflation, has grown by about $8 million.

Relative to other towns, Wrentham’s spending growth may be modest. But we overspent relative to incomes and normal, long-term historical home price growth nevertheless.

The reason for this overspending was the unprecedented rise in property values, to which all towns' revenues are geared. As mentioned earlier, prices in the Boston area doubled in a very short period of time relative to historical appreciation rates, which we now know to have been the result of a nationwide "bubble.” Most town budgets, including ours, grew in lock step with this bubble.

But home prices are now roughly 17% off their 2005 peak (and might be much lower without ongoing government support). Despite this, Wrentham and other towns' spending is higher than in 2005, the peak home-price bubble year.

The hard truth is that Wrentham’s spending in the late 1990s and early-to-mid 2000s was attached to unsustainable property value growth. It was attached to a real estate bubble. Our overspending became chronic, or structural, as a result, and our budgeting process is thus starting with a baseline that is neither valid nor realistic. This is true of government at nearly all levels, and is not necessarily the fault of any one party or group of leaders.

The problem we face now – and may be facing for many years – is that the new state of the world (that is, one of flat or falling, not ever-increasing, home prices) cannot support a level of spending that was based on what we now know to have been a bubble in property values. The problem is structural, and so the solution must be structural. As such, it may be painful and disruptive to some.

Incredibly, the “right” level of Town spending may be somewhere in the range $28 million - some 17% less than we plan to spend today. This figure can be arrived at using a few different approaches. First, assume Wrentham’s budget should have grown at about the rate of inflation from 2002 onward - plus a little more (nearly $2 million, or almost 10% of the starting value, to be generous) for improved or additional services. Alternatively, reduce today’s spending by the percentage decline in property values, ignoring other sources of revenue. Finally, you can assume $2,000 in new spending (the 2002 starting value) for each new resident - population apparently increased by some several hundred between 2002 and 2010 - then round up very liberally. No matter how you slice it, you get about $28 million, or about 17% less than this year's budget.

Such an overall spending level would get us back to “normal” following years of abnormal home price growth, and accounting for population growth. This “normal spending” is therefore a more realistic baseline. Though not actually desirable or feasible, as a reference point normal spending reveals how much in excess of long-term, sustainable spending Wrentham’s budget actually grew during the bubble. In fact, much of the spending growth of the several years leading up to the Great Recession can be thought of as “bubble spending,” in the sense that it was not sustainable in the long-run.

Even with the spending restraint of recent years, there remains a huge gap – several million dollars - between normal spending, plus increases for increased and improved services, and bubble spending.

We have closed some of this gap with tax increases and spending cuts. Sacrifices and tough choices have already been made. Unfortunately, more are required to return spending to a more normal path.

Voting “no” on June 4 will result in more short-term pain. This is regrettable. But it is preferable to continued, unsustainable bubble spending.